The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1809-06-23

Ing the construction which lie had given. TO
the non-intercoursc act. And indeed, if on
the last vote which had been taken Cfor con-
sidering his motion) he could with any sense
lot decorum or propriety have, voted against
himself. if he could have voted IN the mega
tive on. his ogn motioh, he should have Ia
ken pleasure IN so doing. For he as much
as any member of this house wished to heer
the communications lying on tile table, but
he was also anxious TO see a question uf righy
with respect to himself decided and to his
perfect satisfaction, the house had support
ed the decision of the chair, and yet the
course whic.. the business would take was
precisely the same as if the house had adj
united his motion in the FIRST instance to be
IN order, except that some three quarters OF
an hour or more Rad been occupied in dis
cussing the point of order. wish (said Mr.
k.) to make some answer to the objections of
very venerable gentleman from Pennsylva-
MIA, (Mr. Find,ey} on the motion which it
is now proposed to. postpone. / think the
principal objection Of that gentleman was,
that Il was improper at any tine to discuss
or entertain such propositions-that mott
ons Ia Appreciation or Misrepresentation of the
conduct OF the Executive of the United States
ought not to be agitated here: that they are
wrong in principle; and that how much SO
ever he nnightbe disposed to appl aud the con-
1
!ticnlar, he would not counteir,nce motion
approving that conduct What weight it
wall have with the other members OF this
house (said Mr. RI knew not, but there
i Is precedent on file which ought not TO be
Edestitute of weight with that gentleman.
| from the FIRST session of the third Congress.
which met at Philadelphia in November.
1793, Soon after the late General Washing
ton had issued his celebrated proclamation
OF, neutral;tyr-and l. beg the house to carry
along with them IN their minds the simili-
tude OF the two occasions & the dissimilitut.e
too, & TO keep in recollection that wherever
there is a difference between the two cases.
the advantage is ON the side of the motion
which l have had the honor to Law before
YOU. For example, in the, year 1893, previ-
Gus to the first session of the third Conpress.
the late General Washington conceivine.
himself to be required by his duty as presi
dent OF the United States to issue a. certain
proclamation-and recollect that the pre.
sent motiSn is relative to a proclamation,
and hinges entirely on (which proclama-
NATION General Washington was not reduir-
ed to issue by any law of the land, i find
that at that time the gentleman from Penn
sylvanla and another gentleman from Penn
sylvania. an ancient colleague of his mr..
SMILEY and several other members of the
present Congress were then members of the
house OF Representatives; and it appears on
the journal that on that very day the com
mittee or elections did report that the Gre
dentials of these gentleman entitled them to
their seats. 1 am consequently to suppose
their presence, except ! were to suppose
what have-no right or disposition, TO do)
that there was some dereliction of dirty on
their part, and they we're absent from their
Seats The yeas and nays indeed were not
taken. m Er,Iv 81
resolved unanimously TO address the Presi-
dent OF the United States in the words fol
lowins-l do NOT mean 10 fatigue the house
or myself with reading the whole of it, but
will read extracts.
!. " The United States having taken no part
IN the war WHICH had embraced in Europe.
the powers with whom they have the most
extensive relations, the maintenance of
peace was justly to be regarded, as one of
the most important duties of the magistrate.
charged with the faithful execution of the
laws. We accordingly Witnessed, with ap
Probation and pleasure, the vigilance with
which you have guarded against an interrup
ton of that blessing by your Proclamation.
admonishing, our citizens of the conse-
quences ofillicit or hostile acts, towards the
Delll5erent parties; and promoting, by
aeciaraffon Of the eristing iegdl state of
things, an easier admission of our rich. to
the immunities belonging to our situation
Now here, Sir, is vote of appreciation,
proposed on the subject of a Proclamation.
which the President of the United State,
was called upon, by mol law of the land, to Is
sue, and on the execution of which duty. in
manner COMFORTING with their sense of that
duty, depended the appreciation or disappro-
baton of this House-and surely. sir. IL II
was competent for the House Of Representa-
tives, in the year 1898, to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania, and other gentlemen.
now members of this House, to appreciate
the conduct of President Washington. in is.
suing that proclamation which he was not
required to do by any specific statute, it is
surely at least rs proper now to approve the
conduct OF president Madison, in a case in
which it was his special duty to do it. Where
there is a variance between the two cases.
IT is IN favor of the motion which have the
honor to submit. But perhaps shall be told
by some OF those youthful spirits, who have
lately made their appearance in this House,
that this is precedent taken from federal
times; and therefore ought not to be relied
on oy good democrats. Bat, sir, il unfortu-
nately happens for those gentlemen, who
would thus evade the force of it, that in the
very zenith of democracy, a precedent per.
1ectiy analogous or even stronger than the
one now conteDded for, was entered upon our
journal. AT the second session of the seventh
Congress, (the first which convened after
the election of Mr.. Jefferson to the chief
maglstracy) the House of Representatives
were moved to come to the following re,olu-
ton, IN relation to the obstruction OF the ma
vlgation of the river Mississippi, and of the
right OF deposit at New Orleans, by the