Alexandria advertiser and commercial intelligencer. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1800-1803, 1802-07-28

DunnelS pICVCiltcu IL OCitiS uOiiC lOCHCls
The length Of the report, comprehending
all the principles exhibited to view, and
including the balances therein drawn, and
afterwards copying it took comfortable
length of time. Being then plefented to
the committee, as mere proportions,
which they might lrike out or amend at
pleafufe (which was laa Tuelday1 It was
relolved to apply that Mr.. Stoddert,!for
his anfwer refpetting that part OF the re-
port concerning him. That was done.
twas afterwards propofed that Mr.. Stod-
der,s anfwer fhould become part OF the
report. This was overuled. A new
Ipropoiition was then made, that Mr..
Dawfons's cafe, thould be made part Of
the report. This the majority thought
improper alto. Proposition was then made
that Mr.. Tracy fhould be heard. -
A letter, written BY the gentleman from
Delaware to him, for that purpole, was
| handed to the chairman to fgn, but ano-
Their gentleman thought it better to wait
! on Mr.. Tracy in Perfon. This was a
| greed to with fome amendment. The re-
port was then pofponed till the fubiequent
| day, to hear what Mr.. Tracy might fay.
The committee then met at nine o'clock,
and waited till twelve, bat Mr.. Tracy
did not come, the report was therefore
made up without hearing him. Thefe
facts he had thought proper to fate, that
the houfe might exonerate the committee
from having done wrong.
Mr.. Randolph iaid his illnefs, and the
length of the fitting, rendered him too
fatigued to proceed far in the invefigati-
on of the obieryations of the gentleman
from Delaware, but he felt one oblerva-
ton, 10 f,ongly meriting reply, that he
could not ab&ain from rifing he meant
the particular wherein M.. Dawfon and
Mr.. Tracy were parrallelled. He fays
the difference is only in the name of the
parties, but he has failed to prove this
familiarity. The difference is 70 palpable,
that no man can fail to perceive the diff
milarity with the exception, l mutt FAY
| of the gentleman from Delaware.) Mr..
Tracy was a member of the iena,e OF the
United States, when he received his ap-
pointment. That he was blameable for
taking, or precluded from accepting it no
one wlllfay, unleis it can be proved TO
have been an Office, created while he was
member of the fenate. But this was not
the cafe with Mr.. DAYTON. MIR. Tracy
being member of the fenate, l will fay
that his confitGents had no power what
ever, TO revoke their confidence in him,
becauie he did not return to their fufflages.
The other gentleman was private citizen,
and the act Of placing confidence in him,
obtained after his appointment and during
his abfence on the milton. This was an
ACT for which they were not re1ponfble
to any man upon earth, and therefore, it
does not belong to this houfe. Another
true diainetion in the cafes is, that Mr..
Tracy accepted an emolument for iervices
rendered, at the fame identical time that
he was receiving his mileage as fenator.
he certainly, therefore received double
pay for his fervices. IF Mr.. DAYTON had |
received his pay as a member OF congreis,
and his compensation for his milton to
France at the fame period, the cafes would
have been 70 far fmilar. But it was not
70, for his foreign milton cealed long be-
fore the houfe fat. Mr.. Tracy received
emolument at thar time, for an office which
he could not and did not FL. And which
if he had filed, was totally Incompatible
with the office of fenator. This is a true
dihinaion between the cafes. The quef-
tionlwhether aperlon holding an Office un-
der the government, is eligible toa feat
in this houle, might eafly have been de-
,ermined by the gentleman, and the quef-
ton whether Mr.. Dawlon, was eligible to