Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1808-02-19


the power of the House to procure, he
should move that the resolution be refer
red to a select committee with instruct
ons TO enquire into and report how much
money has been expended in the city o
Washington, and how much may be saved
! by a,removal. and that, the heads of De.
partmen,s be instructed to afford such in.
formation as the committee may call for.
Nr. Montgomery wished to know ii the
motion were in orders 143a.E .l : ..
The Speaker conceived that it was in
order TO, move a commitment, but not in
order particularly to instruct the commit.
Tee to whom it was committed.
| Mr. GARDENER said there might be an
error in the motion; but herwas led into it
from the indulgence of the House in a
similar motion which he had made some
time ago in consideration ofthe resoiu ion
for enquiry into the conduct of Gen. vii.
kInson, and on which motion question
was taken by Yeas and Nays. IF he had
been wrong then, he was no, right now /;
ifhe had been right then, he. was not wrong
now. He submitted to the decision of he
Speaker, however, aud withdrew that part
| OF his motion which went 10 instruct the
committee with design to renew it here
latter.
Mr, Goldsborough, although he was de-
lcidedly opposed TO removal, was willing
20 commit the resolution, in order that i,
might undergo thorough investigation.
and receive full decision. He hoped that
gentlemen thinking as he did would agree
o refer it, ct the same time he assured
he House that he had not an idea that ths
Secretary of the Treasury or other de-
lpartnen, could give them any information
necessary to decide this question. If a
motion were not now before the House he
would move TO refer it toa committee OF
the whole.
MIR. GARDENER, as he had no preference
or any particular committee, withdrew
his motion, moved 10 commit the resoIu-
ion 10 a commi'tee Of the whole.
Mr.. Rhea (T.) opposed the commitment,
in the course Of his remarks observing that
it appeared to him as If gentlemen made mo-
tions for others to make speeches upon, and
withdrew them as SON, before a question
|could be taken on them, as though they
wished to prolong a tedious discussion.
Mr.. Nicholas opposed commitment, as
|duce farther delay on a subject which had
already occupied the attention of the House
too long.
Mr.. Smile observed that it was not good
policy in any majority TO push their advan-
tage TOO far Gentlemen must see by this
time that they had better have stopped
when they had forced the minority to re-
treat; but not satisfied with that TREY deter
mined to go farther s. triumph over them.
Every IN noriy could always perplex ma
jority, and something in proof of that they
now saw. The gentleman who renewed
this motion had yet in his power to with
draw it; If he did not, he could not expect
ANY accommodation on the part of the mi
tnority.
Mr. Burwcll in speech OF some length
opposed commitment. He regretted
that so much warmth had beer displayed,
that public measures had been suspended
and the body lied down 10 his subject with
out producing any COED EJECT. He went
over the ground Of removal OF which he
did not believe there was any constitutional
prohibition, but there were circumstances
attendant on the erect - OF the place into
seat of government, which operated as
strongly in his mind against removal as
If the constitution Itself mad prohibited il.
Mr.. Van Dyke in speech OF conside
rabie length advocated the removal Gnd
commitments. - When
4 motion for adjournment was made
(hls being The ski days discussion on
this subject> and carried SIS 10 %.