The recorder, or, Lady's and gentleman's miscellany (Richmond, Va.), 1802-02-27 00:00:00

THE RECORDER; Or, LADY'S AND GENTLEMAN'S MISCELLANY;
Printed by HENRY PACE, and JAMES T. CALLENDER, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA; and published every SATURDAY. Subscription Two Dollars per annum;
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1802.
CALEB WILLIAMS.
[Continued from our last.]
BUT he was conscious that this proceeding would involve him in considerable obloquy; and he at length fixed upon a scheme which, at the same time that he believed it would sufficiently freeter his reputation, would much more certainly secure her mortification and punishment.
For this purpose he fixed upon a young man of twenty, the son of one Grimes, who occupied a small farm, the property of his confidant. This fellow he resolved to impose as a husband on Miss Melville, who, he shrewdly suspected, guided by the tender sentiments she had unfortunately conceived for Mr. Falkland, would listen with reluctance to any matrimonial proposal. Grimes he selected as being in all respects the diametrical reverse of Mr. Falkland. He was not precisely a lad of vicious propensities, but in an inconceivable degree boorish and uncouth. His complexion was scarcely human; his features were coarse, and strangely discordant and disjointed from each other. His lips were thick, and the tone of his voice broad and unmodulated. His legs were of equal size from one end to the other, and his feet misshapen and clumsy. He was a total stranger to tenderness; he could not feel for those refinements in others, of which he had no experience in himself. When Emily heard from her mistress the proposal of Mr. Grimes for a husband, she was for a moment silent with astonishment at so unexpected a suggestion. But, as soon as she recovered her speech, she replied: No, sir, I thank you. Bless me! I do not want a husband; I am but a child.
You are a woman! Are not you always hankering after the men? It is high time you should be settled.
Mr. Grimes is such a strange man. Why, I do not know what he is like! He is like for all the world a great huge porpus. No, I thank you! when I do have a husband, it shall not be such a man as Grimes neither.
Be silent! How dare you give your tongue such unaccountable liberties?
Well, I wonder what I should do with him. Why, it is like as if you should give me your great rough water-dog, and bid me make him a silk cushion to lie on in my dressing-room. Beside, Mr. Grimes is a common labouring man, and I am sure I have always heard my aunt say that ours is a very great family.
It is a lie. Our family! Have you the impudence to think yourself one of our family?
Lord, sir! was not your grandpapa my grandpapa? And how then can we be of a different family?
For a damned strong reason. You are the daughter of a rascally Scotchman, who spent every shilling of my aunt Hannah's fortune, and left you a beggar. You have got a hundred pounds; and Grimes's father promises to give him as much. How dare you look down upon your equals?
Nay, now, sir, I am sure I am not proud. But, indeed and indeed, sir, I can never love Mr. Grimes. Dear, dear! he is more like a cart-horse than a husband. I am very happy as I am. I love you, and I love Mrs. Jakeman: why should I be married?
Cease your prating! Grimes will be here this afternoon. Look that you behave well to him. If you do not, he will remember and repay you when you least like it.
Now, I am sure, sir, you—you are not in earnest?
Not in earnest! Damn me but we will see that. I can tell what you would be at. You had rather be Mr. Falkland's toils, than the wife of a plain downright yeoman. But I shall take care of you. Aye, this comes of indulgence. You must be taught the difference between high-flown notions and realities. Mayhap you may take it a little in dudgeon, or so. But never mind that. Pride always wants a little smarting. If you should be brought to shame; it is I that shall bear all the blame of it.
The tone in which Mr. Tyrrel spoke was so different from anything to which Miss Melville had been accustomed, that she felt herself wholly unable to determine what construction to put upon it. Sometimes she thought he had really formed a plan for imposing upon her a condition, that she could not bear so much as to think of. But presently she rejected this idea as an unworthy imputation upon her kinsman, and concluded that it was only his way, and that all he meant was to try her. To be resolved however she determined to consult her constant adviser, Mrs. Jakeman, who saw the whole in a very different light from that in which Emily had conceived it, and trembled for the future peace of her beloved ward.
Lord bless me, my dear mamma! cried Emily, (this was the appellation she delighted to bestow upon the good house-keeper) sure you cannot think so. But I do not care. I will never marry Grimes, let them do as they will.
But how will you help yourself? My master will oblige you.
Nay, now you think you are talking to a child indeed. It is I am to have the man, not Mr. Tyrrel. Do you think I will let any body else choose a husband for me? I am not such a fool as that neither.
Ah, Emily! you little know the disadvantages of your situation. Your cousin is a violent man, and perhaps will turn you out of doors, if you oppose him.
Oh, mamma, it is very wicked of you, to say so. I am sure Mr. Tyrrel is a very good man, though he be a little cross, now and then. He knows very well that I am right to have a will of my own in such a thing as this, and nobody is punished for doing what is right.
Nobody ought, my dear child. But there are very wicked and tyrannical men in the world.
Well, well, I will never believe that my cousin is one of those.
I hope he is not.
And, if he were, what then? To be sure I should be very sorry to make him angry.
What then? Why then my poor, dear Emily would be a beggar. Do you think I could bear that?
No, no. Mr. Tyrrel has just told me that I have a hundred pounds. But, if I had no fortune at all, is not that the case with a thousand other folks? Why should I grieve, for what they bear and be merry? Do not make yourself uneasy, mamma. I am determined I will do any thing rather than marry Grimes, however; that is what I will.
(To be continued.)
MARENGO; OR, THE CAMPAIGN OF ITALY;
[Continued from our last.]
X. Description of IVREA.
The Marquisate in which this town is situated was founded by Charlemagne. It is situated partly on a plain and partly on a hill, and contains about seven thousand inhabitants. There are still some remains of an ancient fortress, called Il Castello , supposed to have been built by Ardouja, first Marquis of Ivrea. Its inhabitants are the descendants of a Roman colony, sent hither during the sixth consulship of Marius. It is about eight leagues north of Turin, and is a bishop's see.
The main army having climbed over the mountain of Albaredo, in the manner described, filed off by this town, which seasonably furnished the troops with bread, wine, meat, and rice, objects so indispensably necessary to their subsistence. No sooner were they supplied with these articles than their hearts were again elated with joy; and the present abundance effaced the remembrance of the cruel hardships and privations they had endured.
Here it will be proper to relate an occurrence, which will shew in a striking manner, how little the enemy seem to have been prepared for the disasters which were suspended over their heads.
XI. Battle of ROMAGNO.
Four or five thousand of the enemy assembled in haste, from Turin and the adjacent garrisons, united themselves to about two thousand we had driven before us the preceding day, and took up a position at Romagno, where they intrenched themselves. They were covered by a deep river, the bridge of which had not been cut down, owing, as it is imagined, to the contempt they held us in, from entire ignorance of our force, as well as our designs. They said openly among themselves that the report of Buonaparte commanding this army in person, was false; that it was an adventurer who resembled him, or it might be one of his brothers who had put himself at the head of a collection of Italian refugees, without artillery, and without cavalry; that we were only throwing ourselves away in this manner, to turn or divert their main operations before Genoa. One part of them boasted besides, that they only feigned to retreat, in order to draw us into more open ground, to cut us with more ease to pieces.
The next day, the valor of General Lannes, at the head of his advanced guard, put an end to their ridiculous stories and their vain hopes together. Romagno was carried by the bayonet; the bridge and the redoubts were soon cleared of the enemy. The dead and the wounded were left on the spot, and the fugitives were pursued as far as the road to Turin. This was a dearly paid-for lesson they acquired of the bravery of those troops they had so much despised a little while before. Their cavalry, indeed, taking advantage of an open space, and a favourable terrein , faced about, charged our infantry, which from too much ardour in the pursuit had separated; but, luckily for them, the 11th
and 12th demi-brigades of the hussars were near at hand, united to the 16th light, to the 28th and 44th of the line, and again drove off the enemy by prodigies of valor.
XII. Entrance into VERCELLI.
Buonaparte, in order the better to conceal his designs, on the 26th of May, caused two divisions to make a turn, whilst the advanced guard, under General Lannes, immediately proceeded to the Chiusella and the Po, which obliged the enemy to cross the latter, where they took up a position on its right bank. Thus, while the attention of the Austrians was occupied by the movements of this corps, the division of cavalry under the orders of General Murat, took the route of Milan, and on the 27th of May, entered Vercelli. On the same day, the Italian Legion, commanded by General Lechi, came down the Sesia. The division of Gen. Turreau advanced by Mount Cenis, and took possession of Suza and the Brunette. A column of our troops penetrated from the Simoron, and marching towards Domo d'Ossola, turned the Austrian position there, on the 28th of May. Gen. Macey's division, after passing Mount St. Gothard on the 26th, pushed its advanced guard to Ariolo, driving the Austrian General Dadoovich to the Lago Maggiore. In the mean time, General Lannes's corps continued its march to the Po, which induced the Austrians to believe it was his intention to take up a position at Albi, in order to intercept the troops on their march from Nice to Milan. But our army, after a day's halt at Chivasso, suddenly on the night of the 30th, passed the Doria, and skirting the Po, joined General Murat at Vercelli.
XIII. Entry into NOVARRO.
With the Passage of the TESSINO.
The Staff of Ivrea, which was transferred to Vercelli, staid there but one night; next day, removing to Novarro, which the enemy had evacuated that morning. We left this latter place at midnight; the Consular guard accompanied us. Already, many divisions attended with the utmost impatience upon the banks of the Tessino, waiting for the signal to cross it in their turn. What an interesting spectacle was it to see the generous disputes which arose thereupon. Every one would be of the General's division. The rapidity of the river had destroyed the bridge of boats; and to add to our misfortune, we found ourselves without the means of constructing another. These were obstacles sufficient to have stopped the progress of any other than a French army. A few crazy wherries, or barges, were collected in which the soldiers embarked; and those served for oars. Some carabineers of the 6th light darted forward, under the protection of a well-directed fire of musketry, and a few pieces of cannon. The grenadiers of the 28th followed, and the opposite bank was presently cleared of the enemy. As they had less infantry than cavalry, they were obliged to quit the marshes, as also some other fields, and a little wood which had incommoded them more than it had protected them.
Buffalora was the principal point against which the chief of our efforts was directed. The passage was effected a league lower, on the Tessino. Our troops menaced the enemy with taking them in the rear.
(To be continued.)

The Recorder.
RICHMOND.
SATURDAY, Feb. 27.
RICHMOND
PRICE CURRENT STOCK.
Six per cents, 18 3/4
Three per cents, 10 3/4
COURSE OF EXCHANGE.
On London at 60 days, 30 per cent.
PRODUCE.
Richmond Tobacco, 26 3/4 cash.
Flour, Fine, 30 3/4 cash.
Ditto, Superior, 35 cash.
Wheat, Red, 6 3/4.
White, 6 3/4.
Indian Corn, 16 3/4 per barrel.
Hemp, £45 per ton.
ERRATUM.
In our last Page 2d Column 1st, Line 27th from the top.—For productions, read predictions.
AT no period, since the commencement of the federal constitution, have the debates of congress been published in such an irregular, and at the same time, in such a voluminous manner, as at present. Formerly, the reporters and printers of newspapers had only to cope with the debates of the house of representatives; or, if they did occasionally publish a debate in the senate, it was a very rare circumstance. In the beginning of the present session, the senate agreed to admit of two reporters. Almost immediately afterwards, Mr. Breckenridge brought in his bill for the repeal of the judiciary act of last session. On this question he made no less than three successive speeches, which would probably have filled ten or twelve columns of "The Recorder." Besides the speech of Mr. Morris, inserted in this day's paper, he made a second, which of itself would fill at least ten of our columns, or perhaps a larger number. We are not far either above or below the mark, when we state that these two gentlemen's five speeches alone would fill twenty-five columns of this paper. Many other members of the senate spoke, such as general Mason, general Jackson, Mr. Stone, Mr. J. Mason, Mr. Olcott, Mr. Tracy, Mr. Wright, Mr. Chipman, and Mr. Ross. Mr. Chipman himself occupies seven columns and a half, in one of the newspapers. Upon a general view, we are confident that the speeches already published are equal to sixty columns of this paper. We do not pretend to conjecture the number of columns that are still in reserve; perhaps not less than twenty or thirty more.
The reader knows that this bill past the senate by a majority of one. The lawyers of Philadelphia, or at least a very decisive majority of them, have presented to congress a memorial in favour of the old law. This paper, as we formerly noticed, is subscribed by Mr. Alexander Dallas, an eminent and active republican. It is also subscribed by Mr. John McKean, son to the governor; and the latter, in a communication to the assembly, has announced, in terms abundantly plain, that he is opposed to the repeal of the late judiciary law. On the other hand, a great number of citizens of Philadelphia, and all, or most of them, the friends of governor McKean, have presented an address against the old law, and in favour of the plan of Mr. Breckenridge. All this betrays a very wide difference of opinion among the republicans.
This judiciary bill has since been brought before the house of representatives. On 15th the 15th, the house took it up, and went into a committee of the whole. They have since debated a great deal about it. On the 18th current, Mr. Stanley from North Carolina spoke against the bill, and Mr. Giles in defence of it. A Washington paper of the 19th says that the debate was likely to last two weeks from the time of its commencement; and that the most splendid speeches on the side of the bill had not yet been delivered. "All" says this editor, "will be done, that can be done, to preserve the constitution; but hope is almost without foundation."
The bill of proceeding on the 19th, in the house of representatives, justifies the conjecture that the debate, will, in the whole, take up a fortnight. On that day, Mr. Bayard spoke against the bill from twelve o'clock till half past three; and even then, he had not come to a conclusion, and was obliged to defer the remainder of his remarks till next day. Of this speech, the Washington editor last quoted gives the following account.—"The speech of Mr. Bayard is far superior not only to all other speeches, [Mr. Morris, and some others,] but to any speech or a Demosthenes, a Cicero, or a Chatham. This is saying much, but when that speech shall be published, as it will be in course in this paper, not
a single person will dispute the correctness of this remark."—We shall see by and bye. Adopting the cant of the National Intelligencer, this printer tells us that "Mr. Bayard addressed himself mostly to the standing." It is likely that the second series of debates on the judiciary bill will occupy a second sixty or ninety columns.
No other business of much consequence has been transacted by the house of representatives. The mint seems in some danger of being condemned by the representatives; but if they should do so, there is a great probability that the senate will refuse their concurrence.
From Europe we have nothing of importance. The papers are filled with reports concerning the progress of the negotiation for peace between France and England, the sailing of the French troops for St. Domingo, the names of their officers, &c. One of the forged extracts of letters, that we have met with this week, says that the French are going to restore Brabant to the Austrians. This, forsooth! comes in a letter from a gentleman of the first respectability in Amsterdam to a merchant in Philadelphia. The extract, although but short, contains another capital fiction, to wit, that the French design to shut up the navigation of Antwerp! This is just as if America were to shut up the navigation of James River. We had designed to string together a number of these precious extracts; but room is wanting.
PUBLIC TAXES PAYABLE IN VIRGINIA, 1802.
On wholesale merchants, forty dollars; on retail ditto, fifteen dollars; on lands, for every hundred dollars value, agreeably to the equalizing law, forty-eight cents; for every slave above the age of twelve years, except such as have been, or shall be exempted by reason of age and infirmity by the respective county or corporation courts, forty-four cents; for every stud horse and jack ass, twice the price at which such horse or ass covers a mare for the season: for all other horses, mules, mares, and colts, twelve cents each; for every ordinary license, twelve dollars and fifty cents; for every four wheel riding carriage, except phetons and stage waggons, one dollar and twenty-five cents per wheel; for all phetons and stage waggons, eighty-four cents per wheel; and for every other riding carriage with two wheels, forty-three cents per wheel: for all lots and houses in town, one dollar and fifty-six cents on every hundred dollars of the rent thereof.
The legislature of Vermont, at their late Session, passed an act, instituting the punishment of DEATH on any person killing another in a duel: The seconds, the person knowingly concerned in conveying the challenge, and (if death should not ensue) both the parties, are to be deprived forever thereafter, of the right of citizenship.
[A FIB.]
A letter from Dublin states, that James Napper Tandy, who bore the commission of general of Brigade in the French service, has received official notice to prepare for immediate execution, or transportation to Botany Bay for life!
[Aurora.]
PROVIDENCE, R. ISLAND Jan. 30.
A few days since, the large and extensive manufactory for fire-arms, belonging to Mr. Elisha Brown, of Potter, was unfortunately consumed by fire. A parcel of unfinished arms were in one of the buildings. Mr. Brown has heretofore, by contract, furnished large quantities of excellent arms for the United States.
Wednesday morning last, about two o'clock, the house of Mr. Aaron Bourn, innholder, at Bristol, was consumed by fire, with nearly all the furniture. Some of the family narrowly escaped with their lives.
CAUTION.
A number of counterfeit Notes of the Bank of the United States are in circulation—They resemble, as nearly as possible, the genuine Notes, except in the water mark—They were made in Springfield, N. J.—one of the accomplices has been discovered, but was lucky enough to make his escape before he could be arrested—It is said he has gone off to the Western Country
[From a late Augusta Herald.]
Last evening was committed to jail in this place, William Fuller, the Western Post Rider, charged with robbing the mail of the United States; with the particulars of the transaction, we are not at present fully acquainted.
It appears that the rider was observed on the road travelling towards Augusta, with the Mail behind him, and with the remnants of several letters in his hand, which he appeared to be destroying; several parts of letters and Post Bills and one letter was found in the road, and the covering of a mail directed "Augusta;" these circumstances induced the post master at Columbia court house, when the rider arrived at his office to arrest him, when he confessed that a small hole had been worn in the mail portmantua, through which he contrived to get a packet or mail of letters; that out of the letters directed to Petersburg, Virginia, he took 75 dollars, and out of another directed to a Mr. Rhodes, in Savannah, he took 200 dollars; the money he pocketed, and destroyed all the letters in that packet; 220 dollars of the money were found upon him, these are all the particulars at present within our knowledge.
A DUEL.
[From a late New-York Paper.]
Yesterday morning (notwithstanding its being the Christian Sabbath, and in spite of the contempt into which duelling has fallen,) two gentlemen met at Hobuck to settle an affair of honor. At the first shot, we understand, a ball penetrated the coat of one of the parties; at the second, he was wounded in the thigh. The injured honor of his antagonist having received this atonement, the combatants and their friends quitted the field, "covered with glory."
FROM THE BOSTON GAZETTE.
At the Court at Dedham, last week, the Grand Jury returned a bill of indictment against David Sisk, Isaac Whiting, Reuben Farrington, Ebenezer Fairbanks, jun. Nathaniel Davis and Samuel Gay, for the rescue of Jason Fairbanks, on the 18th of August, who was confined under sentence of death for murder. Farrington and Whiting were acquitted by the Jury—Gay is gone away—Sisk, Fairbanks and Davis, were found guilty. These three are punished by fines and imprisonment. A bill of indictment was also found against Stephen Fairbanks, a boy of eighteen years old. He would have pled guilty; but considering his youth he was not put to plead. Another bill was found against Samuel Cotton, and Jacob Hamlen, for the same offence. These two were Negroes—they were made witnesses by the Attorney General, and entered a Nolle Prosequi on their indictment. An indictment was found against Henry Dukeham, who had no concern in breaking the prison; but went away with, and was taken and brought back with Jason Fairbanks. He has been confined to close jail ever since. The Attorney General found it necessary, in order to complete the chain of evidence against Ebenezer Fairbanks, who appeared to have been the principal offender, to have Dukeham sworn as a witness. No encouragement was given him of lenity; but the Judge thought that it was not proper to proceed to try him, after having been sworn as a witness against his accomplices; and therefore he was discharged. The Grand Jury found a bill against the Deputy Jailor; but the trial is postponed till August. A bill was found against Doctor Kitttridge for perjury, committed in the trial of Jason Fairbanks; but the trial is put off to the next term.
SHOCKING.
From a Whitesboro' Paper, of Dec. 28.
He that hath ears to hear, let him hear—and let us weep with those that weep.
On the 3d day of Oct. last, the wife of Mr. Rufus Herric of Norwich, in the county of Chenango (state of New-York,) having given a cow some salt, stood in an heedless manner by her until she had eaten it up, when the cow, with an antic motion of her head, wounded Mrs. Herric with one of her horns, so that she let out her bowels, which Mrs. Herric held up with her hands until she got into the house, and laid herself on the bed, where, notwithstanding all human efforts for her recovery, she expired five days after, in the 23d year of her age. She left an affectionate husband and five children to mourn their loss. But alas! not long did they mourn, before three of the children were called to follow their deceased parent. On Saturday last (Dec. 12th,) Mr. Herric went to labour on the side of the river opposite to his house, and set out to return to his family in the beginning of the evening, but some one had removed the canoe, so that he could not conveniently cross the river that night; therefore he concluded to tarry from his family until morning; but he was alarmed about 10 o'clock in the evening by the light of his house in flames; when he made all possible speed to get to it; but before he or any other one could get to the place, his house, three of his children, two daughters one in her eleventh year, the other in her ninth,
and a son in his fifth year, with all his household furniture and effects were consumed. Two sons, Abel and George, the eldest and youngest, one near thirteen, and the other about two, escaped the flames. It is supposed that the eldest carried his brother out of the house; but he cannot remember any thing about it. Abel, with the marks of fire upon him, ran about fifty rods to the nearest house, but it was too late to obtain relief, for the house had fallen, and the children were dead. A funeral sermon was preached the Monday following, and what little remains of the children could be gathered, were interred by the side of the deceased mother.
[It cannot be true that Mrs. Herric was only twenty-three years of age, at the time of her death; because we are told that her eldest son was thirteen. The matter is of no consequence; but it is always proper to be correct.]
LONDON, December, 17.
We daily receive the most distressing accounts of the effects of the late stormy weather. These have been dreadful on the coast of Holland, and we learn by a neutral vessel arrived at Harwich, that no less than eighty-four English vessels have been wrecked between the Texel and the Maes. Eighty dead bodies had in one day, been found on the shore, and carried for interment to the Brille. The damage, we hear, has been equally great to the southward.
December, 18.
It is with much regret we are again obliged to recur to the unhappy distractions in the fleet at Bantry Bay, which are highly disgraceful to the brave seamen who have been misled by the enemies of their country. Most of the particulars contained in the following account may be considered as tolerably authentic.
It was on the evening of the 7th instant, that the first observations were made by the officers of ships of the squadron in Bantry Bay, that indications became evidently certain of some intended and approaching act of Mutiny. It appears, that on its being understood that four or five sail of the line were to be sent to the West-Indies, the crews of the Temeraire and Formidable declared that as the peace was made, they would sail only to England and they declared their determination not to weigh anchor if called upon. Apprehensions were entertained that this spirit of insubordination would extend to the whole fleet.
No sailing orders arriving, and the intended insurrection being adjourned to that event, things remained in the usual position till the morning of the 10th instant, when a seaman on board the Temeraire, Rear-Admiral the hon. George Campnell, misbehaving himself extremely, and with circumstances of daring impudence, towards one of the lieutenants, received a flogging, and was put in irons.
Soon after this occurrence, appearances of revolt were for some time very visible upon the fore-castle, until at length a general cry was set up of "rescue the man in irons;" and an attempt was made to enforce their threat.
The Rear-admiral, with undaunted resolution and presence of mind, ordered the hatches to be closed down immediately: and seconded with no less intrepidity by captain Eyles and all his officers, supported by the marines who have done honor to themselves and given a glorious example to their corps upon this occasion, he rushed into the middle of the mutineers and brought out their ringleaders prisoners from amongst them. They were immediately sent off in irons to the flag ship of admiral Mitchel, in order to be tried, and to receive the punishment due to the crime most unworthy of British sailors.
It may be confidently hoped that the failure of this first experiment of the conspiracy, the punishment of the guilty, and the example given to all other ships by the Temeraire and her officers, have by this time extinguished the last spark of the sedition."
TO PAPER Makers.
Notice is hereby given, that the United States have granted a PATENT to the subscriber, for a discovery he has made in the manufacture of paper, viz. in making Paper from the shavings of tanned Leather, commonly known by the name of currier's shavings—By which Patent, he has vested in him, for the term of 14 years, from the twenty-eighth day of December last, an exclusive right to use the same, or of vending it to others, to be used, agreeably to the law of the United States, in such case made and provided.
JOSEPH CONDIT, Jun.
Bloomfield, January 11, 1802,
N. B. All applications for rights must be made for the present, at the paper Manufactory at Bloomfield, where different samples of the paper may be seen.

The Printers in the United States, will render an essential advantage to the community by notifying this discovery in their respective papers.
A merchant of Germany, in the Pays de Nassau, has discovered the art of rendering woollen cloth impenetrable to water. A bag made of cloth prepared in this manner, did not leak a drop for 8 days; the water evaporated entirely. This discovery is of singular utility.
SENATE
OF THE UNITED STATES.
Speech of Mr. Morris of New-York, on the Bill respecting the Judiciary Establishment.
[INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.]
For at least six weeks past, the newspapers of America have been very much crowded with the debates upon this bill. Hence, a person who subscribes to perhaps five different papers, very often finds them but little more than successive editions of each other. This becomes very tiresome; and that was one of the reasons, why we long since determined to adopt a different course, both concerning the debates of Congress, and the other departments of our little publication. We shall not harass our readers, or ourselves, by thrusting, head and shoulders, into "The Recorder," all the commodities that are imported from Europe, or the West-Indies, under the title of Foreign Intelligence . We shall here and there find an article of authenticity and importance; and it will meet with all the attention which it deserves. We shall, upon many occasions, meet with fabricated extracts of letters, or with fabulous paragraphs, by which a scribler of Paris, or of London, has been empowered to eat his breakfast in a garret. Of these we shall explain a few, as specimens of the rest. Of the remaining medley of news we shall give an impartial, and as far as the case admits of it, a complete summary.
With regard to the proceedings of Congress, if the reporters found it suitable for them to abridge their debates within one fourth part of the present room, we should be happy to insert the whole. These gentlemen undoubtedly understand their business, and it would be very improper in us to censure them for the length, or even, if we should think it such, for the prolixity of their productions. They have a title to act as they please; and the action at large, is highly indebted to the ingenuity and the diligence of their efforts. We make these previous observations, to prevent our being suspected of any disposition to cavil at the present Reporters; a disposition which would very ill become us; inasmuch as we spent the greater part of five sessions of Congress, from December, 1793, to July, 1797, in that very line of business.
After this candid explanation, we must again beg leave to hint that we should like the debates of Congress much better, that we should find them much more intelligible and manageable, if they could be contracted within a fourth part of their present expansion. We tread upon tender ground; and must once more assure the reader that this remark arises from no want of respect for Congress, and far from any pique at an individual Reporter. But to speak our minds frankly, what mortal can read without yawning, or indeed what mortal can read at all, through the truth and fiction, the sense and the folly, of forty, fifty, or sixty columns of Senatorial Debates upon a Judiciary bill? It is easy to harangue for hours upon any subject; but surely all that can be worth a perusal upon the present point might be compressed within much less room than a wilderness of sixty columns. A man must have strong eyes, an uncommon share of leisure, and an admirable spirit of perseverance, if he can accomplish this task. We have never thought of attempting it; for after several dips into the stream of Senatorial eloquence, we were bold enough to fancy that the current was often muddy, and, with reverence be it spoken, that it was sometimes very shallow.
For instance, we have showed that when Mr. Breckenridge adverted to the laws of England, that when he represented them as fully competent to redress the wrongs of the people of England, he dogmatized upon a topic, which he did not entirely understand, or of which he did not choose to tell what almost every well informed lawyer in America must know to be true.* In a second instance,† we referred to his inconsistency in defending and celebrating the judiciary system of the United States, and the independence of her judges. We stated it as the opinion of Mr. Breckenridge, and of every one of his political friends, (and there is not a single man in the country who will deny our assertion) that they considered Chief Justice Ellsworth as to the last
degree culpable for his conduct in the trial of Captain Williams. They held in equal abhorrence the behaviour of the late Scots Judge Wilson, for his exhibition upon the trial of Gideon Henfield.‡ Messrs. Paterson, Washington and Chase, were saluted with all the violence of Democratical invective, on account of their behaviour at the successive trials of Lyon, of Holt, of Haswell, of Cooper and of Callender. "We are not, in this place, hinting an opinion, and far less a censure, upon the demeanour of those gentlemen. The battle is over, and we are solicitous that political animosity should be finally forgotten. If those Judges did not practise their duty, they certainly understood it. We only wish to remind Mr. Breckenridge that the time has been, when he considered the independence of federal judges, as the
Dream of a dream, and shadow of a shade. He saw, or thought he saw that the barriers which the Constitution had erected, were overleaped, or overturned; that this part of the Constitution was a castle in the air; that the integrity of federal judges was prostrate in the dust. And after all this, Mr. Breckenridge, in the necessities of a public debate, comes forward to celebrate that part of the Federal Constitution, which has provided so admirably for the independence and purity of the federal judges. Mr. Breckenridge affirms that "the two separate and distinct checks furnished by the Constitution," [to wit, in defence of the independence of the judiciary,] "against two different departments of the government, are the ONLY ONES, which are or ought to have been furnished on the subject."
This is astonishing language! It is indeed the very summit of inconsistency! Put not your trust, men of Virginia! in the reputation of a popular name. But rest on the basis of your own understandings; and we shall instantly convince you that this extract is worse than an empty sound.
The whole body of Republicans have always asserted, that the conduct of the federal judges, under the Sedition act, trampled upon the checks of the Constitution. The Senator from Kentucky has always said so; and now he says that these checks are the only ones, which ought to have been furnished on the subject!
I plant a rail fence by way of check, to keep my neighbour's pigs out of my corn-field. The pigs break through it; and then I remark that this is the only check, which ought to have been furnished.
The candid reader will not be surprised at our freedom of remark. We cannot think of discharging such rhapsodies from the press, without the proper antidote along with them. And such a specimen of these judiciary debates will check your agonies of anguish or disappointment, at our not having printed the whole set of them.
It has of late become fashionable for the editors of American newspapers to copy speculative paragraphs from their preceptors at the city of Washington; and as "the Recorder" is anxious to be in the fashion, we shall take a slight notice of some remarks upon the speeches of Mr. Breckenridge, and of Mr. Morris, that have been copied into a crowd of newspapers from the National Intelligencer. This writer says, that the speech of the Senator from Kentucky is addressed exclusively to the understanding. It neither descends to common place declamation, nor soars into the lofty and obscure regions of romance. It addresses itself entirely to reason. We hesitate not, therefore, to call it a CHEF D'OEUVRE in PARLIAMENTARY annals.
Thus far the Washington Aristarchus. We really thought that we were in the midst of congressional annals; and we hope, that they will, for a long time, be very different from those of a British Parliament. The printer might as well have spoke of Polipp or Carthaginian annals. We have not been able to discover that the speech in question is more exclusively than others addressed to the understanding. Some parts of it, such as that concerning the independence of our federal judges, and the perfection of the judiciary system of England, are sufficiently romantic and obscure. But the critic was determined upon writing; and he wanted capacity, or leisure, to be at the trouble of thinking. As to the following speech of Mr. Morris, the same writer, and the swarm of editors that copy after him, speak thus:
"We pronounced the speech of Mr. Morris one of the most splendid specimens of eloquence ever delivered in a deliberative assembly. The verdict of others, of more enlarged observation, has fully justified our remark. But as to argument we said nothing, nor shall we now say anything. We are perfectly willing to let the nation appreciate its admiration, according to its estimate of the relative value of intellect and fancy."
The rest of this encomium rises above our comprehension; and we shall not attempt to criticise what we do not understand. The writer says, that the following speech is a most splendid specimen of eloquence. And yet he would not give his opinion, as to the force
of its arguments! He leaves the reader to estimate the relative value of intellect and fancy. When all this has been reduced to the intelligible language of common life, we are informed that good sense is one thing, and that eloquence is another; that a man may be a very great orator, at the same time when he is talking very great nonsense. This is the opinion of the National Intelligencer; and it is from such a pure and profound fountain-head of criticism, that our brethren are in the habit of extracting columns upon columns.
We should be glad to learn what kind of eloquence it is, that can exist without the support of reason. The great orator of Athens, who, at the distance of two thousand years, continues to stand at the head of his profession, is, at the same time, one of the closest and most convincing reasoners in the world. It is herein that his main excellence consists. Try to strike out the solidity of his arguments, and you shall hardly leave him even the shadow of Demosthenes. The great Tully Cicero, as Madam Welter calls him, is equally remarkable for the acuteness of his arguments, and his dexterity in arranging them. Take off these, and his orations are not worth reading. To come nearer home, consult the debates of the Richmond Convention, in 1788. Look at the speeches of the son of the Scottish nation of Botetourt county, and you will see that, as he by far excels every other speaker in the graces and art of eloquence, so he is equal to George Mason himself, in the correctness and profundity of his reasonings. His predictions, concerning the consequences of adopting the federal constitution, are now to be read, and deserve even to be studied, as prophecies that have been completely fulfilled.
To say, that eloquence can exist without reason, is to say that the shadow can exist without the body, or the branches of a tree without the trunk, or the roots of it. The critic in question may consult, if he pleases, Quintilian's Institutes, Blair's Lectures, or any other common book of criticism; and every one of them will tell him that good sense is the very essence and soul, the Principium et finis , as Horace terms it, of all that is estimable in literary composition.
Mr. Madison has always been regarded as one of the most able speakers in Congress. Yet the above definition will deprive him of the praise of eloquence. His gravity never wanders into it. His politeness avoids satire. He never addresses either the passions, or the fancy. He aspires only to the rank of an intellectual agent, delivering his ideas with a genteel address, and in correct and elegant language. Now if Mr. Madison is not an orator, we should be glad to learn where eloquence can be found.
Mr. Breckenridge himself is, by this definition, excluded from the list of orators. For the critic says, that he addressed himself exclusively to the understanding.
We did not wish to be so particular in handling this critic. His remarks are in reality beneath criticism. But we have seen a great deal of frivolity copied out of him by that kind of editors who have nothing to say from themselves. For their information, as well as for that of the public, we wish to place him in his proper point of view.
These introductory observations have extended to an unexpected length. On that account, we shall suspend, until Saturday next, our notes upon the
SPEECH OF MR. MORRIS.
* Vid. Tom Jones.
MR. MORRIS, of New-York. Mr. president, I am so very unfortunate, that the arguments in favor of the motion have confirmed my opinion, that the law to which it refers ought not to be repealed. The honorable mover has rested his proposition on two grounds.
1st. That the judiciary law passed last session is unnecessary, and
2dly. That we have a right to repeal it, and ought to exercise that right.
The numberless mode of argument, made use of to prove this, is perfectly novel, and commands my tribute of admiration. This is the first time I ever heard the utility of courts of justice estimated by the number of suits carried before them. I have read, that a celebrated monarch of England, the Great Alfred, had enacted such laws, established such tribunals, and organized such a system of police, that a purse of gold might be hung up on the high way without any danger of being taken. Had the honorable gentleman from Kentucky existed in those days, he would perhaps have attempted to convince old Alfred, that what he considered as the glory of his reign, was its greatest evil. For by taking the unfrequency of crimes as a proof that tribunals were unnecessary, and thus boldly substituting effect for cause, the gentleman might demonstrate the inutility of any institution, by a system of reasoning the most fallacious.
But, Sir, if with that poor measure of ability which it has pleased God to give me, I march on that ground, which I have been accustomed to deem solid, I should say that in so far as the terror of our judicial institutions prevent the perpetration of crimes, in that same de-
gree are those institutions useful. This would be my mode of reasoning, but for the wonderful discovery made by the honorable mover of the resolution.
We have been told of the great expence of the judiciary, that it amounted to 137,000 dollars. As thus attributing the whole expence of the establishment to this particular law, it has been assumed in argument that to repeal the law would be to save 137,000 dollars. If the other arithmetical arguments of the gentleman, were equally incorrect, his inferences will be entitled to but little attention.
Of this sum, it appears from a report of the secretary of the treasury that 45,000 dollars are for the contingent expences of juries, witnesses, &c. which serves in some measure to shew that it is expected, much business will be actually done.
The expence arising under this law, that it is proposed to repeal, amounts to thirty thousand dollars, exclusive of fifteen thousand dollars estimated for contingent expences, making together forty-five thousand dollars. But let us not flint the allowance; throw in a few thousands more, and let the whole be stated at 51,000—appportion this sum among the people of the United States according to the census lately taken, and you will find that each individual will pay just one cent. And for this insignificant saving of a cent a man, we are called upon to give up all that is valuable to a nation.
One of the great purposes of a government is to secure the people from foreign invasion. To be ready to repel such invasion requires a great revenue and many officers become necessary to collect it. Such an invasion, however, may or may not take place. If I judge from certain documents laid before us, those who administer our affairs have but little apprehension of that event. If then there be little or no such danger, or if the people be secured against it, what else have they a right to ask for in return for their money expended in the support of government? They have a right to ask for the protection of the law in proper courts of justice, to secure the weak against the strong, the poor against the rich, the oppressed against the oppressor. And is this little which they ask, to be denied? Are the means by which the injured can obtain redress, to be curtailed and diminished? Much may be feared from armies—They may turn their swords against our bosoms; they may elevate a chief to despotic power. But what danger is to be apprehended from an army of judges?
Gentlemen say, recur to the ancient system. What is that system? Six judges of the supreme court to ride the circuits of America twice a year, and sit twice a year at the seat of government. Without enquiring into the accuracy of a statement made by the gentleman respecting the tenure of the judges, which, I apprehended he will find himself deceived, let me ask what would be the effects of the old system here? Cast an eye over the extent of our country, and a moment's consideration will shew, that the first magistrate in selecting a character for the bench, must look less the learning of a judge than the agility of a post-boy. Can it be possible, that men advanced in years, for such alone can have the maturity of judgement fitting for the office, that men educated in the closer, men who from their habits of life must have more strength of mind than of body; is it I say, possible that such men can be running from one end of the continent to the other? Or if they could, can they find time to hear and decide causes? I have been told by men of eminence on the bench, that they could no hold their offices under the old arrangement.
What is the present system? You have added to the old judges seven district, and sixteen circuit judges. What will be the effect of the desired repeal? Will it not be a declaration to the remaining judges that they hold their offices subject to your will and pleasure? And what will be the result of this? It will be, that the check established by the constitution, wished for by the people, and necessary in every contemplation of common sense, is destroyed. It had been laid and truly too, that governments are made to provide against the follies and vices of men. For to suppose that governments rest upon reason, is a pitiful solecism. If mankind were reasonable, they would want no government. Hence, checks are required in the distribution of power among those who are to exercise it for the benefit of the people. Did the people of America vest all powers in the legislature? No. They had vested in the judges a check to the efficient; a check of the first necessity, to prevent an invasion of the constitution by unconstitutional laws, a check which might prevent any fashion from intimidating or annihilating the tribunals themselves.
On this ground, said Mr. Morris, I stand to arrest the victory meditated over the constitution for the furtherance of their own ambitious views. Not of him who had recommended this measure, nor of those who now urge it; for on his weightiness and their uprightness, I have the fullest reliance; but of those in the background who have a further and higher object. These troops that protect the out works are to be first dismissed. These posts which present the strongest barriers are
* Vide the Recorder of the 13th inst.
† Id. of the 25th inst.
‡ At Philadelphia, in June, 1793.
§ Dr. Young.

to be first taken, and then the constitution becomes an easy prey.
Let us then, secondly, consider whether we have constitutionally a power to repeal this law. (Here Mr. Morris quoted the third article and first section of the constitution.) I have heard a verbal criticism about the words shall and may , which appeared the more unnecessary to me, as the same word, shall , is applied to both members of the section. For it says "the judicial power, &c. shall be vested in one supreme court and such inferior courts as the congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The legislature, therefore, had without doubt the right of determining in the first instance, what inferior courts should be established; but when established, the words are imperative; a part of the judicial power shall vest in them. And "the judges shall hold their offices during good behaviour." "They shall receive a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." Therefore, whether the remarks be applied to the tenure of office, or the quantum of compensation, the constitution is equally imperative. After this exposition, gentlemen are welcome to any advantage to be derived from the criticism on shall and may .
But another criticism, which, but for its serious effects, I would call pleasant , has been made; the amount of which is, you shall not take the man from the office, but you may take the office from the man; you shall not drown him, but you may sink his boat under him; you shall not put him to death, but you may take away his life. The constitution secures to a judge his office, says he shall hold it, that is, it shall not be taken from him during good behaviour; the legislature shall not diminish, though their bounty may increase his salary; the constitution provides perfectly for the inviolability of his tenure; but yet we may destroy the office which we cannot take away, as if the destruction of the office would not as effectually deprive him of it as the grant to another person. It is admitted that no power derived from the constitution can deprive him of the office, and yet it is contended that by a repeal of the law that office may be destroyed. Is not this absurd? It had been said, that whatever one legislature can do, another can undo; because no legislature can bind its successor, and therefore that whatever we make, we can destroy. This I deny on the ground of reason, and on that of the constitution. What! Can a man destroy his own children? Can you annul your own compacts? Can you annihilate the national debt? When you have by law created a political existence, can you by repealing the law dissolve the corporation you had made? When by your laws you give to an individual any right whatever, can you by a subsequent law, rightfully take it away? No. When you make a compact you are bound by it. When you make a promise you must perform it. Examine the contrary doctrine, and what follows? The whim of the moment becomes the law of the land; your country will be looked upon as a den of robbers; every honest man will fly your shores. Who will trust you, when you are the first to violate your own contracts? The position, therefore, that the legislature may rightfully repeal every law made by a preceding legislature, when tested by reason, is untrue; and it is equally untrue when compared with the precepts of the constitution; for what does the constitution say? "You shall make no ex post facto law." Is not this an ex post facto law?
Gentlemen say that the system of the last session is mere theory. For argument sake it shall be granted; and what then is the language of reason? Try it, put it to the test of experience. What respect can the people have for a legislature that without reflection meets but to undo the acts of its predecessors. Is it prudent, is it decent, even if the law were unwise, thus to commit our reputation and their's ? Is it not highly dangerous to call upon the people to decide which of us are fools; or one of us must be.
And what would be the effect on the injured man who looks redress in a court of justice, and whom, by this repeal, you shall have deprived of his right? You have saved him a miserable cent, and you have perhaps utterly ruined him.
But the honorable mover of the resolution has told us, not only what is, but what is to be. He has told us not only that suits have decreased, but that they will decrease, and, relying on his preception, informs us that the internal taxes will be repealed; and grounds the expediency of repealing the judiciary law on the annihilation of the taxes. Thus taking for granted the non-existence of a law that yet exists, he infers from its destruction, and the subsequent cessation of suits under it, the inutility of the judicial establishment. And when he has carried his present point, and broke down the judiciary system, he will tell us perhaps that we may as well repeal the internal taxes, because we have no judges to enforce the collection of them.
But what will be the effect of these repeals, and of all these dismissions from office? I implore not the motives of gentlemen who advocate this measure. In my heart I believe them to be upright. But they see not the consequences. We are told that the states want, and ought to have more power. We
are told, that they are the legitimate sources from which the citizen is to derive protection. Their judges are, I suppose, to enforce our laws. Judges appointed by state authority, supported by state salaries, and looking for promotion to state influence, or dependent upon state party. There are some honorable gentlemen now present, who sat in the convention which formed this constitution. I appeal to their recollection, have they not seen the time when the fate of America was suspended by a hair; my life for it, if another convention be assembled, they will part without doing any thing. Never in the flow of time was there a moment so propitious, as that in which the convention assembled. The states had been convinced by melancholy experience, how inadequate they were to the management of our national concerns. The passions of the people were lulled to sleep. State pride slumbered. The constitution was promulgated. And then it awoke; and opposition was formed. But it was vain. The people of America bound the states down by this compact.
One great provision of the constitution, a provision, that exhibited the sublime spectacle of a great state bowing before the tribunal of justice, is gone! Another great bulwark is now to be removed. You are told, you must look to the states for protection; your internal revenues are to be swept away; your sole reliance must rest upon commercial duties. In this reliance you will be deceived. But what is to be the effect of all these changes? I am afraid to say. I will leave it to the feelings and consciences of gentlemen. But remember, the moment this union is dissolved, we shall no longer be governed by votes.
Examine the annals of history, look into the records of time, see what has been the ruin of every republic! The vile lore of popularity. Why are we here? To save the people from their greatest enemy; to save them from themselves. What caused the ruin of the republics of Greece and Rome? Demagogues, who by flattery gained the aid of the populace to establish despotism. But if you will shut your eyes to the light of history, and your ears to the voice of experience, see it leant what has happened in your own time. In 1789, it was no longer a doubt with enlightened statesmen, what would be the event of the French revolution; before the first of January 1790, the only question was, who would become the despot. The word liberty, indeed, from that day to this, had been sounded in our ears, but never had any real existence; there is nothing left but the word.
We are now about to violate the constitution. Once touch it with unallowed hands; sacrifice but one of its provisions, and we are gone. We commit the fate of America to the mercy of time and chance.
I hope the honorable gentleman from Maryland will pardon me, if from the section of the law which he has cited, I deduce an inference diametrically opposite to that for which he has contended. He has told us, that the last congress, in reducing the judges of the supreme court from six to five, have exercised the right which is now to be used, and made a legislative construction of this clause in the constitution. But look at the law. It declares that this reduction shall not be made, until by death or resignation only five judges shall remain. Thus, in the very moment when they expressed the opinion that five judges are sufficient, they acknowledge their incompetency to remove the sixth judge, and thereby make the legislative declaration, that they had not the right now contended for.
[Mr. Morris here noticed some other remarks which had fallen from the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. Wright,) on the construction of the constitution. But, as they are substantially comprised in the preceding statement, we omit them.]
He concluded by recapitulating his arguments. A contract, said he, is made between the government and the judge. The president appoints. The legislature fixes his salary. He accepts the office. The contract is complete. He is then under the protection of the constitution, which neither the president nor congress can infringe. The contract is a solemn one. Can you violate it? If you can, you may throw this constitution into the flames. It is gone; it is dead.
It had been designed to let this speech pass over till next Saturday, without remarks. But, upon an attentive perusal, there has been discovered such a deliberate and artful system of deception, that an editor should not present it to his readers, even for a single day, without offering a few hints on the features of its character.
Mr. Morris affects to answer various assertions, which Mr. Breckenridge never advanced. He is incessantly starting away from the real merits of the question. He attempts to bury them under mountains of verbiage and obscurity. Mr. Morris is a scholar, and a man of talents. He is fully capable of saying whatever can be said in defence of the cause which he has adopted. On this account, the fallacy of his reasoning affords of itself formidable presumption against the justice of his opinion.
His closing remarks chant upon the federal constitution, its danger, death and burial. Since the adoption of that paper, almost thirteen years have elapsed. Within this period, the same alarm bell has been rung, innumerable times. Of all the important debates that occur in Congress, at least one half are embelished with this prediction, that the Constitution is just going to be destroyed! The ball of impeachment is alternately kicked from one side of the house to the other. The frequency of the accusation prevents its having an effect. Think of the old fable of the wolf, and the shepherd's boy.
REMARKS.
IN our paper of the 13th instant, we inserted this copy of a resolution, which Mr. Bayard of Delaware called up in the house of representatives of congress, upon the 25th of January last. The substance of it was to get information from the secretary of the treasury of the expenses attending the collection of the internal taxes. Upon this occasion, Mr. Bayard expressed his expectation that the resolution would meet with the same fate as another had done that morning. But he should at least have the satisfaction of explaining to the world, the motives upon which he acted.
We have already remarked that, upon this question, six of the federal members spoke; and that Mr. Bayard spoke twice. The republicans did not offer any answer, but set aside the resolution by a majority of 57 against 37.
As we have not room to republish the whole of the speeches of the six federal members, we must be contented with inserting those of Mr. Huger, and Mr. Goddard, and the greater part of the second speech of Mr. Bayard.
NOTE.
* Mr. T. Morris of New-York had moved for a requisition from the secretary of the treasury. This was that he should state to the house the amount of stamp duties collected in each state, distinguishing what part was paid by the commercial cities. The republicans, without speaking one single word, rejected the motion by 54 votes against 34.
MR. RUTLEDGE.
Mr. Rutledge confessed himself much puzzled by the new forms of proceeding this day adopted. Ever since he had the honor of a seat in congress, it had been invariably the practice, when measures were proposed not agreeable to the majority, for them to offer their objections to them. This had ever been the practice, and the experience of its convenience offered strong reasons for its continuance. When the majority stated their objections to any measure, the minority, in sustaining it, answered them fully; thus both sides acted understandingly; and when the proceedings of the national legislature went out to the people, they were at the same time informed of the reasons under which their representatives had legislated. This had not only been the usage in congress, but the form of proceeding in all representative bodies with whose history we are acquainted. Even in the British house of commons, which gentlemen had often and emphatically styled a mockery of representation, so great is the respect paid to public opinion, that the majority deem it their duty to assign, in debate, the reasons of their conduct. Although the minister in England has quite as much confidence in the strength of his majority, as gentlemen here can have in theirs, yet, in feeling power, he does not forget right, and his regard for public opinion is so great, that he never secures his measures by a silent vote. In these days of innovation, we, it seems, are to pursue a different course. When the resolution offered this morning by his honorable friend, from N. Y. (Mr. Morris) was taken into consideration, not a voice was raised against it; this profound silence made us expect an unanimous vote. But (in consequence he supposed of some out of door arrangements) it was rejected by this silent majority. He had seen many deliberative assemblies, but never before witnessed such a procedure. He would not say whether this was respectful towards the minority, whom we have been told from high authority, have their equal rights. He would not say whether it was dignified, as it regarded the majority; but without pretending to any spirit of prophecy, he would venture to say it could not be deemed polite or wise by the people of this country.
When the doors of congress were open, and persons admitted to take the debates, the people expected to be fully informed of the views and motives which governed the votes of their representatives. But it seems our constituents are not to be treated with this heretofore common civility. In proposing measures we are obliged to guess at what gentlemen feel against them. For they say nothing and to defend them without knowing in what they are objectionable to those who govern in this house. This kind of governing is ill calculated to produce harmony. To restore social intercourse, and to heal the wounds inflicted on society by the spirit of party.
His friend from Delaware not satisfied with the report made by the secretary of the treasury
respecting the expense of collecting the internal revenues, begs that we may have a further report, and one more in detail. Declares that we really want more information to assist us in forming our opinions. But gentlemen refuse this reasonable request; they may have sufficient information; they may be in habits of intimacy with the heads of departments; in daily communion with them; but we are not, and should act with impertinence, were we by our personal applications to occupy the time of the heads of departments, which is fully engaged during the sitting of the legislature.
The regular mode to obtain information is for the house to ask it. When heretofore in a majority, he, and his friends, had always consented to call upon the heads of departments for any information the minority said they wanted. He should continue to vote for asking, whenever any gentleman said he wanted it. Though probably he should not be thanked for it, as gentlemen on the other side were now so strong as not to want his vote. A bill had lately been introduced for the protection of our Mediterranean trade, and the gentleman on my right from Virginia, with his friends, wanted information from the secretary of the treasury, respecting the extent and value of this trade, to know whether it was worth protecting. I voted for the resolution of the gentleman from Virginia, because he said he wanted information. I did not want any, for the reports of the secretary of the treasury for some years past, had showed the amount of the trade; besides, I deemed it our duty, this nation being so highly commercial, to protect our trade in all its branches. Gentlemen on the other side, seem to shrink from all our propositions lest they should interfere with the project of annihilating all our internal revenues. There is no cause for this fear the president's message invites the measure, and the friends of the recommendations of the executive are too numerous to have their measures obstructed by our efforts. All we ask for is information relative to the expense of collecting this part of the public income. A gentleman say we shall not have it, and yet on all past occasions, they talked about the propriety, in a popular government, of giving information to the public, of not economising in diffusing information; they, who refuse information which is solicited by a large portion of the representatives of the people. Gentlemen not only with old information from us, but will not assign their reasons for withholding it. And to all we urge, they will not deign to say any thing but NO.
MR. BAYARD.
Mr. Bayard. I thank God, if we have not the advantage of hearing gentlemen on the other side express their opinions, we have still the liberty of expressing our own sentiments. Not knowing how long we may have that liberty, I will now state further my opinion on the subject before the house.
The gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Randolph) without condescending to speak himself, has deigned to ask the clerk to read what an extract from the report of the secretary of the treasury, showing the aggregate expense attending the collection of the internal revenue to be about 20 per cent. But is this an answer to my enquiry, when I want particular information that shall discriminate the expense of collecting the different branches of this revenue?
MR. GODDARD.
Mr. Goddard said; That he had until this time, consoled himself with an idea, that whatever measures might be adopted, the present session, he and those with whom he acted, would at least, have been permitted to understand the principles, upon which those measures would be supported. This consolation he had derived from a declaration, made at an early period of the session, by an honorable gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Giles) that economy of information was not what he wished to be practiced. But of that solitary consolation, he had this day been bereft. We have already made such advances in the system of economy, as to have arrived at a point, where it is thought necessary to practise economy of information. He inferred this from the manner in which the resolutions, which had been called up, had been treated. Several motions have been made, to instruct the committee of ways and means, to enquire into the expediency of reducing the duties upon certain imported articles, necessaries of life; they had been uniformly repelled. Gentlemen wished, when the flourishing condition of our finances enabled us to reduce taxes, to take a view of the whole ground; to compare with each other the systems of internal and external taxation.
To enable us to do this, a resolution had been offered, the object of which was to obtain from the proper department, information necessary to this purpose; that also had been repelled. Another resolution is now offered, which has in view the same object, relating to another subject. Gentlemen seem determined to dispose of that also, in the same manner, by a silent vote.
Mr. G. said that he could not be persuaded but that gentlemen would candidly review the course they had adopted, and yet suffer us to have from the public offices, the information necessary to enable us to act correctly upon the business before us.
To be continued.