Alexandria advertiser and commercial intelligencer. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1800-1803, 1803-01-12


information, let them inform US what II
is. And ifthey have no objection, Why
90 into a committee Of the whole; which
# gone into, NUT be with cloled DOORS
The qaeition alluded 10 in the !Britllh
Treaty was very different from this. In
that cafe, one part OF the houie thought
they had right to de nand the intorma-
ton of the executive, and thar he was
bound 10 deliver it; while the other part
of the houfe neither acknowledged the
.righs TO demand, or the obligation 70
obey. Thewefent cafe was entirely DIT
ferent. We ak nothing bot what the
executive fhall think proper 70 furnnh i
we are as cautious as we can pohibly be;
we even 90 70 far as to pat words IN the
Preiident's mouth if he fhall think there
is any Improperly in giving the infor-
nation. Gentlemen certainly have con-
hdence in the executive, that he will tell
us if the information is improper 10 be
turnilhed.
Mr.. Huger could not but express his
iurprife that the Honfe had received no
official documents on this important iub-
jeet. He could not comprehend why
Congrefs lhould not know the contents
of the convention. If proper, we ought
to have thsfe documents and # net
proper, we ought to have reafon tor it.
The country was in fate OF ferrous
alarm; and it might have bad effect i
lomething was not Immediately done, and
a difpoision exhibited to act in cafe It
ihould prove neceiary.
Mr.. Smile faid, the gentleman from
S. Carolina (Mr. Huger) was incorrect
when he 9ated that in the cafe of the Bri
tilh treaty, one fet of gentlemen had con-
tended for the right OF the houfe TO de-
mand papers. Ii this had been 70 the re-
folution then propelled would have been
preremptory whereas the fact was that
il was qualified by an exception of fuch
papers as the PRECEDENT might coniideT It
improper to furnifh. Mr.. Smile here
quoted the journals, which confirmed his
remark.
Mr.. Gregg, faid it would be allowed
rhat this was an important reioluticn,
which related to an important inbject.
This was, he believed, the hra inaance in
which reloIution allowed to be impor-
tant, had been refuied reference to
committee of the whole. On this prln-
ciple his vote would be decided. If the
motion dia not prevail, he fhould then
move that the relolution ihculd be printed
before it was acted upon.
Mr.. Grifwold would not Object to the
reference if the ohjee were 70 obtain
more full dicufion OF the reiolusion. He
was generally in favor OF iuch references,
as the dilcui1ion was conducted in a com
mttee of the whole on irecr fcale than
in the Honie. On this principle j, was
that the call for papers respecting the Bri-
tih treaty was referred TO committee OF
The whole. But it had not been referred
90 committee of the whole, on the fate
of the union.
He, however, underaood the Object of
gentlemen to be to refer the reiclution TO
committee of the whole, for the purpofe
of difcufling it with clofed doors. If that
were the Object, he fhould oppofe it. For
he would FAY, nothing of fecrecy could
arife out of the difcufion of this rcfolution.
He did not with that refolution, 70 i'm
portant, lhoula be referred to iecres CON-
mittee. If gentlemen mean TO deny US
this information, let them deny ii IN pub
lie. Let them not do it in fecret com
mittee. Surely they can have no iuch un-
worthy motives.
AS to the cafe of 1896, under the Bri-
tih treaty, the ground Of oppohtion was
this: 1t was claimed that the Houie had
a right to decide upon a treaty, and to
eaablilh this point papers were called for.
And on the decifon of the queition, on the