Chapter L: Introduction (49)

Mr. Lewis commenced his speech by observing, that he appeared there on behalf of Conrad Laub, and other respectable men, who complained of the unconstitutionality of admitting Mr. GALLATIN to a seat in the Senate. He was glad to find, by the gentleman's expressions, that the ground of debate had been narrowed into so small a compass, and he would therefore take him up from the argument where he had left off speaking, that of his being a citizen in common of the United States, from the time of his qualifying in Massachusetts or Virginia. But in Virginia two oaths are required, and they must be taken in a court, not before a magistrate, to entitle a man to citizenship. He must also be possessed of a certain quantity of property and be a resident for two years. It appears Mr. G. did not remain in Virginia more than two months. (Here Mr. Lewis read the law of Virginia of the 20th October, 1783.) On this law Mr. L. argued that Mr. G. had not gone through the necessary qualifications to entitle him to citizenship there; and he observed, that he admired the gentleman's candor in not insisting on it here. In this State he had certainly not qualified himself agreeably to the law. Under these circumstances, Mr. L. for his part could never admit of the gentleman's right to citizenship so far back as to entitle him to the suffrage of a vote for a seat in the Senate, &c.

The mischievous consequences of permitting such innovations, he represented in strong terms; and he called to the recollection of the Senate, the conduct of ancient and modern governments on this question. One of the ancient republics made it death for an alien to intermeddle in their politics. The sentiments of antiquity, and those of men in modern days, proved the justice of these conclusions.

With regard to the arguments of the gentleman respecting his being entitled to be a citizen of the Union, or any individual State of it, because he had qualified himself to be citizen of one of them, Mr. L. said, was a mere bubble, for surely the gentleman was not one of the mass of citizens at the accomplishment of independence.

The doctrine of the old law, which the gentleman says was done away by the Revolution, in respect to aliens, may have been so with regard to the British King; it was still, however, virtually in force against the gentleman. But supposing it to be done away, how do the constitutions of the different States stand on this head? Is it not implied by all of them, that certain oaths, residence, and property, make the requisites to form citizenship? In Massachusetts a foreigner is not a citizen, without he complies with those terms. [Here he quoted p. 70 of the small volume of the Laws of Massachusetts. He also cited the act in favor of John Jarvis and others; also, p. 104 of the same book, and p. 191 and 192.] From these he maintained, that no such wild idea was ever contemplated by either the law of Massachusetts or Virginia, as to admit foreigners or persons from other States to citizenship, immediately on their entrance within their limits.

The situation of the sitting member, with respect to the constitution and laws of Pennsylvania, he had little doubt was similar to what he had mentioned in regard to the other States, although he would not assert it as a fact. [He read the 42d section, and also in p. 43 of the Law of Pennsylvania, 13th March, 1789, a proviso which contains some precautions requiring records to be kept by the master of the rolls of the persons admitted to citizenship.] The same principle pervades all the States as well as it does the Constitution of the United States. The absurdity of applying it in any other sense, was severely pictured by Mr. L., and to admit the idea advanced by the sitting member, was as inadmissible as it was novel. In support of what he wished to impress on the minds of the Senate, Mr. L. quoted the 1st vol. of the Journals of Congress in 1774 and 1775, pp. 28 and 29. He then recurred to _Blackstone_, vol. I, pp. 63, 64, and 69; also 73 and 79.

It was not his intention to quote the Parliamentary Laws of England in support of any thing, but such parts of their Common Law as could be got over--that Common Law of England which was imported by our ancestors, and handed down to them by the people, not the Parliament. The people had made the Common Law, from time to time. The Saxons, Normans, &c, were all concerned in making and improving it, until it had finally reached that degree of perfection in which it was given to us by our ancestors, and it was founded in wisdom and justice.

Mr. L. next quoted, first _Blackstone_, 402, which was one of the British laws that had never been admitted in this country, and which, he hoped, never would, viz: that wherein the distinction is drawn between the Commoner and the Peer, an oath being required of the Commoner, upon all occasions, and no more than "_upon my honor_" from a Peer, except in giving evidence in civil or criminal trials.

Mr. L. concluded, by saying that the difficulties which stood between Mr. GALLATIN and his seat, were insurmountable and could not be removed without showing a law of Massachusetts, Virginia, &c., repealing those laws in regard to the qualification of citizens, which he had mentioned, but which repeal he was certain did not exist. He therefore stated, that to insist upon the gentleman's right to a seat, was both novel and absurd. These were his opinions, which he had given in a perfectly extempore way, not having been allowed time nor expecting to meet the subject on the new ground which it had this day taken in the Senate.

Mr. GALLATIN said, he would pledge himself to the Senate, to prove that the grounds of his arguments and his construction of the Confederation and laws of the States, were neither novel nor absurd, except in Mr. L.'s construction of them, but had been admitted in many instances. However, as the Common Law of England was now introduced by Mr. L., which was new ground to him, and as the hour of adjournment was nearly approaching, he would beg leave to make his reply to-morrow.

On motion, the further consideration of this subject was postponed until to-morrow.

FRIDAY, February 21.

_Contested Election._

Agreeably to the order of the day the Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the committee on the petition of Conrad Laub, and others, respecting the election of Mr. GALLATIN to be a Senator of the United States.

Mr. GALLATIN commenced his defence by laying down the principles on which he intended to argue. His was a very serious situation for a person to be placed in, who had been so long in America, and who had mingled with the inhabitants in the common cause, that he should afterwards be called before so solemn a tribunal, with an intention to wrest from him his right of citizenship. He confessed, that on this occasion his feelings were deeply interested, particularly as the manner of the counsel for the prosecutors was so personal, and went not only to deny him a seat in the Senate of the United States, but even to contest his citizenship, and denounce him as being yet an alien.

This was a matter of consequence to many thousands as well as himself, who have long considered themselves in possession of all the privileges of denizens, and yet may be deprived of their rights, if the doctrines of the counsel for the prosecutors should obtain any sanction from the body who were now to judge of its merits.

Mr. G. entered into a series of observations on the various points of law, &c., which had been adduced by Mr. LEWIS, and he particularly remarked, that the Common Law of England was entirely inapplicable to the subject under consideration. He read the laws of Virginia respecting naturalization, &c., from which he insisted that he had long since become a citizen of the United States. He also quoted 1st _Blackstone_, p. 374, and _Viner's Abridgment_, vol. ii. p. 266, respecting the different acceptations of denizen and citizen, and he went back so far as the British statutes in 1740, to show the intention of the old Government was to naturalize all persons who would go and reside in the Colonies. He next mentioned the act of Pennsylvania, of the 31st of August, 1778, and commented on the principles generally entertained by most writers on the subjects of allegiance and citizenship. _Blackstone_, 266, &c.

An alien is a man born out of the allegiance of the King. But allegiance in England is not an allegiance to the country or to society, as it is understood in this country.

In order to explain the principle of reciprocity, he observed, that when the two crowns of England and Scotland were united under James, the inhabitants of Scotland became naturalized in England, as if they had been natural-born subjects of that country. The allegiance in Britain was personal to the King, and it has there this remarkable quality, that by the British laws allegiance can never be shaken off.

This country, before the Revolution, owed allegiance to the King, but that was destroyed by the Declaration of Independence, and then the inhabitants of the States became mutually citizens of every State reciprocally; and they continued so until such time as the States made laws of their own afterwards respecting naturalization.

As soon as separate governments existed, allegiance was due to each, and here the allegiance was a reality, it was to the Government and to society, whereas in Britain it is merely fictitious, being only to one man.

Every man who took an active part in the American Revolution, was a citizen according to the great laws of reason and of nature, and when afterwards positive laws were made, they were retrospective in regard to persons under this predicament, nor did those posterior laws invalidate the rights which they enjoy under the Confederation.

Mr. G. here mentioned his having been an inhabitant of Massachusetts before October, 1780, and he also observed, that the law passed in that State was decisive against the Common Law of England.

In quoting the laws of Massachusetts, which were passed in 1785, and afterwards, for naturalizing John Gardner, and James Martin, he remarked that they clearly implied that even a natural born subject, who had not acted in the Revolution, and an absentee, was not entitled to citizenship. He likewise took notice of the case of Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, of South Carolina, against whose election as a Representative in Congress, a petition was presented by Doctor Ramsay, although the decision of South Carolina on that subject was exactly the reverse of Massachusetts.

In speaking of the difficulties that occurred in explaining the terms citizen and alien, he ran over a number of cases, and asked whether if a person had arrived in the United States during the war, from Nova-Scotia, or elsewhere, and had taken an active part against the enemy, would he not be better entitled to the right of a citizen, than even those who afterwards subscribed to the acts? The counsel for the prosecutors had admitted that a person who had been one of the mass of the people, at the Declaration of Independence, was a citizen. On the same principle, until a law passes to disprove that a man who was active in the Revolution previous to the treaty of peace, was a citizen, he must be one _ipse facto_.

Mr. G. next read a quotation from the 1st vol. of _Woodison_, p. 382, an English writer, who acknowledged that all persons were aliens at the recognition of independence, and that is a more liberal construction than the council for the petitioners would admit of, for by this construction, our sailors, &c., ought to be naturalized, lest they be alarmed by the British.

The new Constitution of the United States requires certain qualifications for members of Congress, &c., but it does not deprive persons of their rights who were actually citizens before the constitution was ratified that made the States the United States. They were united by consent before, and consequently he was one of the people before the United States existed.

He went on to read from the Constitution of Massachusetts, and several other States, sundry clauses in support of his reasoning, and recapitulated the several heads of Mr. L.'s arguments, to each of which he replied.

Mr. G. said, that Mr. Lewis was unfortunate in producing the law of Pennsylvania, for, by proving too much, he had proved nothing, for the 42d sec. of the constitution is retrospective, and by acknowledging the Articles of Confederation to be the supreme law of the land, persons who were reciprocally citizens before, are still left in full possession of the right.

So far from any dangerous consequences arising on my construction of citizenship, said he, I think it must be evident, that there is more danger and absurdity in the counsel's own constructions. For, in remarking on the policy of nations, we find even slaves have been enfranchised by the great republics in times of common danger. The policy of America should be to make citizenship as easy as possible, for the purpose of encouraging population; even during the British dominion that was a principle laid down, and afterwards it was attempted to be varied; it is made one of the principal subjects of complaint in the Declaration of Independence, where it is expressly said, that the king endeavored to prevent the population of these States, by having laws made to obstruct the naturalization of foreigners.

If there were any dangerous consequences to be apprehended from the former regulations on this subject, they are all remedied by the new constitution.

Therefore, no ill consequence or absurdity can follow. The author of the Federalist supports this principle in vol. ii. p. 54, for he says, that it is a construction scarcely avoidable, that citizens of each of the States are mutually so in all of them.

The first words in the constitution, "We the People," furnished another argument in support of Mr. G's principles, which he turned to great advantage, still drawing an inference to show that Mr. L.'s construction of the subject was most liable to difficulties and to mischievous consequences.

He concluded by observing, that if there was any disfranchising clauses in the Constitution of the United States, tending to deprive citizens of antecedent rights, all such clauses must be construed favorably, and were evidently on his side. With regard to a sentence that had been added, by the advice of counsel, to the affidavit of Pelatiah Webster, he made some remarks which tended to establish his own personal character, which he trusted would be found, when traced back to his nativity, to stand the test; and that his right to a seat in the Senate would also stand upon an equally just foundation.

Mr. Lewis denied having ever seen the affidavit of Mr. Webster, until it was shown him at the time the examination before the committee was going forward.

Mr. GALLATIN recriminated, that the clause of which he took notice, was not in the affidavit when Mr. Webster brought it to the committee, and that he had permitted it to be added with great reluctance. It was only the recital of a few words which passed between Mr. G. and Mr. W. in jest, some years since, wherein Mr. G. had ironically said his name was Sidney, probably alluding to some essays that had appeared in the newspapers under that signature, which had been generally attributed to the pen of another gentleman in the State.

Mr. JACKSON, in order to bring the merits of the subject directly before the Senate, said he would move a resolution, that would have that effect; but upon Mr. Lewis's observing, that he had not yet closed his arguments, and at the instance of Mr. BUTLER, from South Carolina, who said he would second Mr. JACKSON's motion hereafter, it was withdrawn for the present.

_Ordered_, That the further consideration thereof be postponed until to-morrow.

SATURDAY, February 22.

_Contested Election._

The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the committee on the petition of Conrad Laub, and others, respecting the election of Mr. GALLATIN to be a Senator of the United States.

The greater part of the day was taken up by Mr. Lewis's pleadings, wherein he entered into a very extensive field of reasoning, and quoted a great number of authorities, in support of the principles on which he had set out last Thursday, and to prove that in the true sense of the Constitution of the United States, as well as of that of the State of Pennsylvania, Mr. GALLATIN was not duly qualified for the office of a Senator, and therefore, he trusted that the honorable Senate, upon mature reflection, would vacate his seat.

Mr. GALLATIN closed his defence in a short speech, wherein he quoted _Vattel_, p. 167, and explained the 42d section of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, the liberal construction of which, he said, was in his favor, and the construction contended for by the counsel, absurd. He finished by reading a passage from _Lord Bacon's_ works, to show that where there is any doubt in the laws, it should operate in favor of the defendant, and he accordingly made no doubt but that the Senate would validate his election.

_Ordered_, That the further consideration of the subject be postponed until Monday next.

A motion was made as follows:

"_Resolved_, That ALBERT GALLATIN, returned to this House
as a member for the State of Pennsylvania, is duly
qualified for, and elected to, a seat in the Senate of the
United States."

_Ordered_, That the consideration of this motion be postponed until Monday next, and that a number of copies of the fourth article of the First Confederation of the United States be printed for the use of the Senate.

MONDAY, February 24.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion made the twenty-second instant, on the report of the committee on the petition of Conrad Laub, and others, respecting the election of Mr. GALLATIN to be a Senator of the United States; and, after progress,

_Ordered_, That the further consideration thereof be postponed until to-morrow.

FRIDAY, February 28.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the 22d instant, on the report of the committee on the petition of Conrad Laub, and others, respecting the election of Mr. GALLATIN to be a Senator of the United States.

And, on the question to agree to the motion, as follows:

"_Resolved_, That ALBERT GALLATIN, returned to this House
as a member for the State of Pennsylvania, is duly
qualified for, and elected to, a seat in the Senate of the
United States:"

It passed in the negative--yeas 12, nays 14, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Bradley, Brown, Burr, Butler, Edwards, Gunn,
Jackson, Langdon, Martin, Monroe, Robinson, and Taylor.

NAYS.--Messrs. Bradford, Cabot, Ellsworth, Foster,
Frelinghuysen, Hawkins, Izard, King, Livermore, Mitchell,
Morris, Potts, Strong, and Vining.

On motion that it be

"_Resolved_, That the election of ALBERT GALLATIN to be a
Senator of the United States was void, he not having been a
citizen of the United States the term of years required as
a qualification to be a Senator of the United States:"

A motion was made to divide the question at the word "void;" and,

On motion to agree to the first paragraph of the motion so divided, it passed in the affirmative--yeas 14, nays 12, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Bradford, Cabot, Ellsworth, Foster,
Frelinghuysen, Hawkins, Izard, King, Livermore, Mitchell,
Morris, Potts, Strong, and Vining.

NAYS.--Messrs. Bradley, Brown, Burr, Butler, Edwards, Gunn,
Jackson, Langdon, Martin, Monroe, Robinson, and Taylor.

On motion to adopt the resolution as follows:

"_Resolved_, That the election of ALBERT GALLATIN to be a
Senator of the United States was void, he not having been
a citizen of the United States the term of years required
as a qualification to be a Senator of the United States:"

It passed in the affirmative--yeas 14, nays 12.

_Resolved_, That an attested copy of the resolution of the Senate, declaring the election of ALBERT GALLATIN to be void, be transmitted by the PRESIDENT of the Senate to the Executive of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

FRIDAY, March 7.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate, that the House of Representatives have passed a bill, entitled "An act to prohibit the carrying on the slave trade from the United States to any foreign place or country;" also, a bill, entitled "An act limiting the time for presenting claims for destroyed certificates of certain descriptions;" in which bills, severally, they desire the concurrence of the Senate.

THURSDAY, March 13.

The bill authorizing and directing the settlement of the accounts of Major General LAFAYETTE was read the third time.

_Resolved_, That this bill pass, that it be engrossed, and that the title thereof be "An act allowing to Major General LAFAYETTE his pay and emoluments while in the service of the United States."

WEDNESDAY, March 19.

The bill sent from the House of Representatives for concurrence, entitled "An act to prohibit the carrying on the slave trade from the United States to any foreign place or country," was read the third time and passed.

THURSDAY, March 20.

The bill to authorize the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in certain cases, to alter the place for holding a session of Congress, was read the second time.

MONDAY, March 24.

KENSEY JOHNS appeared and produced his credentials of an appointment by the Governor of the State of Delaware as a Senator for the United States, which were read.

Whereupon, it was moved that they be referred to the consideration of the Committee of Elections before the said KENSEY JOHNS should be permitted to qualify, who are directed to report thereon; and it passed in the affirmative--yeas 13, nays 12, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Bradley, Brown, Burr, Edwards, Gunn,
Hawkins, Jackson, Langdon, Livermore, Martin, Monroe,
Robinson, and Taylor.

NAYS.--Messrs Bradford, Cabot, Ellsworth, Foster,
Frelinghuysen, Izard, Mitchell, Morris, Potts, Rutherford,
Strong, and Vining.

The Senate resumed the second reading of the bill to authorize the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in certain cases, to alter the place for holding a session of Congress.

TUESDAY, March 25.

The bill to authorize the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in certain cases, to alter the place for holding a session of Congress, was read the third time; and, being amended,

_Resolved_, That this bill pass, that it be engrossed, and that the title thereof be, "An act to authorize the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in certain cases, to alter the place of holding a session of Congress."

WEDNESDAY, March 26.

The bill, sent from the House of Representatives for concurrence, entitled "An act limiting the time for presenting claims for destroyed certificates of certain descriptions," was read the third time.

_Resolved_, That this bill pass with amendments.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate, that the House have passed "A resolution laying an embargo on the vessels in the ports of the United States;" in which they desire the concurrence of the Senate.

FRIDAY, March 28.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee of Elections, to whom was referred the credentials of Kensey Johns, appointed by the Executive of the State of Delaware to be a Senator of the United States; which report is as follows:

"The Committee of Elections, to whom were referred the
credentials of an appointment by the Governor of the State
of Delaware, of Kensey Johns, as a Senator of the United
States, having had the same under consideration, report--

"That George Read, a Senator for the State of Delaware,
resigned his seat upon the 18th day of December, 1793, and
during the recess of the Legislature of said State.

"That the Legislature of the said State met in January, and
adjourned in February, 1794.

"That, upon the 19th day of March, and subsequent to the
adjournment of the said Legislature, Kensey Johns was
appointed, by the Governor of said State, to fill the
vacancy occasioned by the resignation aforesaid.

"Whereupon, the committee submit the following resolution:

"_Resolved_, That Kensey Johns, appointed by the Governor
of the State of Delaware, as a Senator of the United
States, for said State, is not entitled to a seat in the
Senate of the United States; a session of the Legislature
of the said State having intervened between the resignation
of the said George Read and the appointment of the said
Kensey Johns."

On the question to agree to this report, it passed in the affirmative--yeas 20, nays 7, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Bradford, Bradley, Brown, Burr, Butler,
Cabot, Edwards, Ellsworth, Frelinghuysen, Gunn, Hawkins,
Jackson, King, Langdon, Livermore, Martin, Mitchell,
Monroe, Robinson, and Taylor.

NAYS.--Messrs. Foster, Izard, Morris, Potts, Rutherford,
Strong, and Vining.

_Resolved_, That an attested copy of the resolution of the Senate, on the appointment of Kensey Johns to be a Senator of the United States, be transmitted, by the PRESIDENT of the Senate, to the Executive of the State of Delaware.

TUESDAY, May 20.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

_Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives:_

In the communications which I have made to Congress during
the present session relative to foreign nations, I have
omitted no opportunity of testifying my anxiety to preserve
the United States in peace. It is peculiarly, therefore, my
duty, at this time to lay before you the present state of
certain hostile threats against the territories of Spain in
our neighborhood.

The documents which accompany this message develope the
measures which I have taken to suppress them, and the
intelligence which has been lately received.

It will be seen from thence that the subject has not been
neglected; that every power vested in the Executive on such
occasions has been exerted; and that there was reason to
believe that the enterprise projected against the Spanish
dominions was relinquished.

But it appears to have been revived upon principles which
set public order at defiance, and place the peace of the
United States in the discretion of unauthorized
individuals. The means already deposited in the different
departments of Government are shown, by experience, not to
be adequate to these high exigencies, although such of them
as are lodged in the hands of the Executive shall continue
to be used with promptness, energy, and decision,
proportioned to the case. But I am impelled, by the
position of our public affairs, to recommend that provision
be made for a stronger and more vigorous opposition than
can be given to such hostile movements under the laws as
they now stand.

G. WASHINGTON.
UNITED STATES, _May_ 20, 1794.

The Message and papers therein referred to were read, and ordered to lie for consideration.

WEDNESDAY, May 21.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

_Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives:_

I lay before you, in confidence, sundry papers by which you
will perceive the state of affairs between us and the Six
Nations, and the probable cause to which it is owing; and
also certain information, whereby it would appear that some
encroachment was about to be made on our territory by an
officer and party of British troops. Proceeding upon a
supposition of the authenticity of this information,
although of a private nature, I have caused the
representation to be made to the British Minister, a copy
of which accompanies this Message.

It cannot be necessary to comment upon the very serious
nature of such an encroachment, nor to urge that this new
state of things suggests the propriety of placing the
United States in a posture of effectual preparation for an
event which, notwithstanding the endeavors making to avert
it, may, by circumstances beyond our control, be forced
upon us.

G. WASHINGTON.

UNITED STATES, _May 21, 1794._

The Message and papers therein referred to were read, and ordered to lie for consideration.

MONDAY, June 9.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate, that the House, having finished the business of the session, are about to adjourn.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary notify the House of Representatives, that the Senate likewise, having finished the business of the session, are about to adjourn; and, he having reported that he had delivered the message, the PRESIDENT of the Senate, conformably to the resolution of the 5th instant, adjourned the Senate to the day appointed by law for the next meeting of Congress.

THIRD CONGRESS.--FIRST SESSION.

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES

IN

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

MONDAY, December 2, 1793.

This being the day appointed by the constitution for the meeting of the present Congress, the following members appeared and took their seats:

_From New Hampshire._--NICHOLAS GILMAN, JOHN S. SHERBURNE, JEREMIAH SMITH, and PAINE WINGATE.

_From Massachusetts._--SHEARJASHUB BOURNE, DAVID COBB, HENRY DEARBORN, BENJAMIN GOODHUE, SAMUEL HOLTEN, WILLIAM LYMAN, THEODORE SEDGWICK, GEORGE THATCHER, and ARTEMAS WARD.

_From Connecticut._--AMASA LEARNED, URIAH TRACEY, JONATHAN TRUMBULL, and JEREMIAH WADSWORTH.

_From Vermont._--ISRAEL SMITH.

_From New York._--THEODORUS BAILEY, EZEKIEL GILBERT, HENRY GLENN, JAMES GORDON, SILAS TALBOT, JOHN E. VAN ALLEN, PHILIP VAN CORTLANDT, PETER VAN GAASBECK, and JOHN WATTS.

_From New Jersey._--JOHN BEATTY, ELIAS BOUDINOT, LAMBERT CADWALADER, ABRAHAM CLARK, and JONATHAN DAYTON.

_From Pennsylvania._--JAMES ARMSTRONG, WILLIAM FINDLAY, THOMAS FITZSIMONS, ANDREW GREGG, THOMAS HARTLEY, WILLIAM IRVINE, JOHN WILKES KITTERA, FREDERICK AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG, PETER MUHLENBERG, THOMAS SCOTT, and JOHN SMILIE.

_From Maryland._--GEORGE DENT and SAMUEL SMITH.

_From Virginia._--WILLIAM B. GILES, CARTER B. HARRISON, JOHN HEATH, RICHARD BLAND LEE, JAMES MADISON, ANDREW MOORE, ANTHONY NEW, JOHN NICHOLAS, FRANCIS PRESTON, ROBERT RUTHERFORD, ABRAHAM VENABLE, and FRANCIS WALKER.

_From Kentucky._--CHRISTOPHER GREENUP.

_From North Carolina._--THOMAS BLOUNT, WILLIAM JOHNSON DAWSON, MATTHEW LOOKE, NATHANIEL MACON, and ALEXANDER MEBANE.

_From South Carolina._--WILLIAM SMITH.

_From Georgia._--ABRAHAM BALDWIN and THOMAS P. CARNES.

A quorum of the members being present, the House proceeded to ballot for a Speaker, when it appeared that FREDERICK A. MUHLENBERG, one of the members from Pennsylvania, was elected; whereupon he was conducted to the chair; and made his acknowledgments to the House.[47]

The House then proceeded, in the same manner, to the appointment of a Clerk, when JOHN BECKLEY was appointed.

The usual oath was then administered to the members.

Messages were interchanged between the two Houses, announcing their formation and readiness to proceed to business.

Joseph Wheaton was appointed Sergeant-at-Arms, Gifford Dally as Doorkeeper, and Thomas Claxton as Assistant Doorkeeper.

A joint committee was appointed by the two Houses to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, to inform him that a quorum of the two Houses is assembled, and ready to receive any communication that he may think proper to make to them.

_Resolved_, That two Chaplains, of different denominations, be appointed, one by each House, to interchange weekly.

_Resolved_, That a standing Committee of Elections be appointed; also a committee to report rules and orders of proceeding.

TUESDAY, December 3.

JOSEPH MCDOWELL and BENJAMIN WILLIAMS, from North Carolina, appeared, and took their seats.

A message from the Senate announced their readiness to receive the communication from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. The SPEAKER and members withdrew to the Senate Chamber, where the PRESIDENT attended, and delivered his Speech to the two Houses, which will be found in the proceedings of the Senate.

On the return of the members, the Speech was committed to a Committee of the Whole.

WEDNESDAY, December 4.

PELEG COFFIN, Jr., from Massachusetts, WILLIAM MONTGOMERY, from Pennsylvania, and WILLIAM VANS MURRAY, from Maryland, appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats in the House; the oath to support the Constitution of the United States being first administered to them by the SPEAKER, according to law.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to both Houses of Congress; and, after some time spent therein, the Chairman reported that the committee had had the said Speech under consideration, and come to a resolution thereupon; which was twice read, and agreed to by the House, as follows:

_Resolved_, That it is the opinion of this committee that a respectful Address ought to be presented by the House of Representatives to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in answer to his Speech to both Houses of Congress, at the commencement of this session, containing assurances that this House will take into consideration the various and important matters recommended to their attention.

_Ordered_, That Messrs. MADISON, SEDGWICK, WATTS, HARTLEY, and SAMUEL SMITH, be appointed a committee to prepare an Address pursuant to the said resolution.

THURSDAY, December 5.

Mr. MADISON, from the committee appointed, presented an Address to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in answer to his Speech to both Houses of Congress; which was read, and ordered to be committed to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.

FRIDAY, December 6.

JAMES HILLHOUSE, from Connecticut, and JOSIAH PARKER, from Virginia, appeared, and took their seats.

Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, from the Standing Committee of Elections, reported that the committee had, in part, examined the certificates and other credentials of the members returned to serve in this House, and had agreed upon a report; which was read, and is as follows:

"It appears to your committee, that the credentials of the
following members are sufficient to entitle them to take
their seats in the House, to wit:"

[After enumerating the names of the members whose credentials were examined, the report concludes:]

"Your committee further report that, in the case of JOHN
PATTON, returned as a member for the State of Delaware, the
Executive of the said State have, together with the return,
transmitted a protest, made to them by Henry Latimer, of
the said State, against the return of the said JOHN
PATTON."

_Ordered_, That the said report do lie on the table.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the Address to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in answer to his Speech to both Houses of Congress; and, after some time spent therein, the Chairman reported that the committee had had the said Address under consideration, and made no amendment thereto.

_Resolved, unanimously_, That this House doth agree to the said Address, in the words following:

SIR: The Representatives of the people of the United
States, in meeting you for the first time since you have
been again called, by a unanimous suffrage, to your present
station, find an occasion, which they embrace with no less
sincerity than promptitude, for expressing to you their
congratulations on so distinguished a testimony of public
approbation, and their entire confidence in the purity and
patriotism of the motives which have produced this
obedience to the voice of your country. It is to virtues
which have commanded long and universal reverence, and
services from which have flowed great and lasting benefits,
that the tribute of praise may be paid without the reproach
of flattery; and it is from the same sources that the
fairest anticipations may be derived in favor of the public
happiness.

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 witness, with approbation and pleasure, the
vigilance with which you have guarded against an
interruption of that blessing, by your Proclamation,
admonishing our citizens of the consequences of illicit or
hostile acts towards the belligerent parties; and
promoting, by a declaration of the existing legal state of
things, an easier admission of our right to the immunities
belonging to our situation.

The connection of the United States with Europe has
evidently become extremely interesting. The communications
which remain to be exhibited to us will, no doubt, assist
in giving us a fuller view of the subject, and in guiding
our deliberations to such results as may comport with the
rights and true interests of our country.

We learn, with deep regret, that the measures, dictated by
a love of peace, for obtaining an amicable termination of
the afflicting war on our frontiers, have been frustrated,
and that a resort to offensive measures should have again
become necessary. As the latter, however, must be rendered
more satisfactory, in proportion to the solicitude for
peace, manifested by the former, it is to be hoped they
will be pursued under the better auspices, on that account,
and be finally crowned with more happy success.

In relation to the particular tribe of Indians against whom
offensive measures have been prohibited, as well as on all
the other important subjects which you have presented to
our view, we shall bestow the attention which they claim.
We cannot, however, refrain, at this time, from
particularly expressing our concurrence in your anxiety for
the regular discharge of the public debts, as fast as
circumstances and events will permit, and, in the policy of
removing any impediments that may be found in the way of a
faithful representation of public proceedings throughout
the United States, being persuaded, with you, that on no
subject more than the former can delay be more injurious,
or an economy of time more valuable; and that, with respect
to the latter, no resource is so firm for the Government of
the United States as the affections of the people, guided
by an enlightened policy.

Throughout our deliberations we shall endeavor to cherish
every sentiment which may contribute to render them
conducive to the dignity as well as to the welfare of the
United States. And we join with you in imploring that
Being, on whose will the fate of nations depends, to crown
with success our mutual endeavors.

_Resolved_, That Mr. SPEAKER, attended by the House, do present the said Address, and that Mr. MADISON, Mr. SEDGWICK, and Mr. HARTLEY, be a committee to wait on the PRESIDENT, to know when and where it will be convenient for him to receive the same.

Mr. MADISON, from the committee appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, to know when and where it will be convenient for him to receive the Address of this House, in answer to his Speech to both Houses of Congress, reported that the committee had waited on the PRESIDENT, who signified to them that it would be convenient to him to receive the said Address at 12 o'clock, to-morrow, at his own house.

SATURDAY, December 7.

PELEG WADSWORTH, from Massachusetts, and JOSEPH NEVILLE, from Virginia, appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats.

The SPEAKER, attended by the House, then withdrew to the house of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and there presented to him the Address of this House, in answer to his Speech to both Houses of Congress; to which the PRESIDENT made the following reply:

GENTLEMEN: I shall not affect to conceal the cordial
satisfaction which I derive from the Address of the House
of Representatives. Whatsoever those services may be which
you have sanctioned by your favor, it is a sufficient
reward that they have been accepted as they were meant. For
the fulfilment of your anticipations of the future, I can
give no other assurance than that the motives which you
approve shall continue unchanged.

It is truly gratifying to me to learn that the Proclamation
has been considered as a seasonable guard against the
interruption of the public peace. Nor can I doubt that the
subjects which I have recommended to your attention as
depending on Legislative provisions, will receive a
discussion suited to their importance. With every reason,
then, it may be expected that your deliberations, under the
Divine blessing, will be matured to the honor and happiness
of the United States.

G. WASHINGTON.

MONDAY, December 9.

GABRIEL CHRISTIE, from Maryland, THOMAS CLAIBORNE and GEORGE HANCOCK, from Virginia, JOSEPH WINSTON, from North Carolina, JOHN HUNTER and ANDREW PICKENS, from South Carolina, appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats in the House.

TUESDAY, December 10.

The House resumed the reading of the communications received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, on Thursday last, and made a further progress therein.

WEDNESDAY, December 11.

BENJAMIN BOURNE and FRANCIS MALBONE, from Rhode Island, appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats in the House.

FRIDAY, December 13.

THOMAS TREDWELL, from New York, and JOHN PATTON, from Delaware, appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats.

_Ordered_, That a committee be appointed to prepare and bring in a bill to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States; and that Mr. GILES, Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, Mr. AMES, Mr. HARTLEY, Mr. HILLHOUSE, Mr. FITZSIMONS, and Mr. BOUDINOT, be the said committee.

MONDAY, December 16.

SAMUEL DEXTER, Junior, from Massachusetts, JOSHUA COIT and ZEPHANIAH SWIFT, from Connecticut, and RICHARD WINN, from South Carolina, appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats.

THURSDAY, December 19.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of State, accompanying a report on the privileges and restrictions on the commerce of the United States in foreign countries, made pursuant to a resolution of the House of the twenty-third of February, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-one; which was read, and ordered to be committed to the Committee of the whole House, to whom are committed the confidential communications from the PRESIDENT respecting the measures which have been pursued for obtaining a recognition of the treaty between the United States and Morocco, and for the ransom of prisoners and establishment of peace with the Algerines.

FRIDAY, December 20.

WILLIAM HINDMAN, from Maryland, and SAMUEL GRIFFIN, from Virginia, appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats.

MONDAY, December 23.

ALEXANDER D. ORR, from Kentucky, appeared, produced his credentials, and took his seat in the House.

THURSDAY, December 26.

A petition of Abram Trigg, of the State of Virginia, was presented to the House and read, complaining of an undue election and return of Francis Preston, to serve as a member of this House for the said State.

_Ordered_, That the said petition be referred to the Committee of Elections; that they do examine the matter thereof, and report the same, with their opinion thereon, to the House.

FRIDAY, December 27.

DANIEL HEISTER, from Pennsylvania, appeared, produced his credentials, and took his seat in the House.

WEDNESDAY, January 1, 1794.

URIAH FORREST and THOMAS SPRIGG, from Maryland, appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats in the House.

THURSDAY, January 2.

ISAAC COLES, from Virginia, and WILLIAM BARRY GROVE, from North Carolina, appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats in the House.

FRIDAY, January 3.

_Commerce of the United States._[48]

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the Report of the Secretary of State on the privileges and restrictions on the commerce of the United States in foreign countries.

Mr. MADISON, after some general observations on the report, entered into a more particular consideration of the subject. He remarked, that the commerce of the United States is not, at this day, on that respectable footing to which, from its nature and importance, it is entitled. He recurred to its situation previous to the adoption of the constitution, when conflicting systems prevailed in the different States. The then existing state of things gave rise to that Convention of Delegates from the different parts of the Union, who met to deliberate on some general principles for the regulation of commerce, which might be conducive, in their operation, to the general welfare, and that such measures should be adopted as would conciliate the friendship and good faith of those countries who were disposed to enter into the nearest commercial connections with us. But what has been the result of the system which has been pursued ever since? What is the present situation of our commerce? From the situation in which we find ourselves after four years' experiment, he observed, that it appeared incumbent on the United States to see whether they could not now take measures promotive of those objects for which the Government was in a great degree instituted. Measures of moderation, firmness, and decision, he was persuaded, were now necessary to be adopted, in order to narrow the sphere of our commerce with those nations who see proper not to meet us on terms of reciprocity.

Mr. M. then read the following resolutions:

[The principle of these resolutions will be best seen in
the debates upon them.]

Mr. M. took a general view of the probable effects which the adoption of something like the resolutions he had proposed, would produce. They would produce, respecting many articles imported, a competition which would enable countries who do not now supply us with those articles, to do it, and would increase the encouragement on such as we can produce within ourselves. We should also obtain an equitable share in carrying our own produce; we should enter into the field of competition on equal terms, and enjoy the actual benefit of advantages which nature and the spirit of our people entitle us to.

He adverted to the advantageous situation this country is entitled to stand in, considering the nature of our exports and returns. Our exports are bulky, and therefore must employ much shipping, which might be nearly all our own: our exports are chiefly necessaries of life, or raw materials, the food for the manufacturers of other nations. On the contrary, the chief of what we receive from other countries, we can either do without, or produce substitutes.

It is in the power of the United States, he conceived, by exerting her natural rights, without violating the rights, or even the equitable pretensions of other nations--by doing no more than most nations do for the protection of their interests, and much less than some, to make her interests respected; for, what we receive from other nations are but luxuries to us, which, if we choose to throw aside, we could deprive part of the manufacturers of those luxuries, of even bread, if we are forced to the contest of self-denial. This being the case, our country may make her enemies feel the extent of her power. We stand, with respect to the nation exporting those luxuries, in the relation of an opulent individual to the laborer, in producing the superfluities for his accommodation; the former can do without those luxuries, the consumption of which gives bread to the latter.

He did not propose, or wish that the United States should at present go so far in the line which his resolutions point to, as they might go. The extent to which the principles involved in those resolutions should be carried, will depend upon filling up the blanks. To go to the very extent of the principle immediately, might be inconvenient. He wished, only, that the Legislature should mark out the ground on which we think we can stand; perhaps it may produce the effect wished for, without unnecessary irritation; we need not at first go every length.

Another consideration would induce him, he said, to be moderate in filling up the blanks--not to wound public credit. He did not wish to risk any sensible diminution of the public revenue. He believed that if the blanks were filled with judgment, the diminution of the revenue, from a diminution in the quantity of imports, would be counterbalanced by the increase in the duties.

The last resolution he had proposed, he said, is, in a manner, distinct from the rest. The nation is bound by the most sacred obligation, he conceived, to protect the rights of its citizens against a violation of them from any quarter; or, if they cannot protect, they are bound to repay the damage.

It is a fact authenticated to this House by communications from the Executive, that there are regulations established by some European nations; contrary to the Law of Nations, by which our property is seized and disposed of in such a way that damages have accrued. We are bound either to obtain reparation for the injustice, or compensate the damage. It is only in the first instance, no doubt, that the burden is to be thrown upon the United States. The proper department of Government will, no doubt, take proper steps to obtain redress. The justice of foreign nations will certainly not permit them to deny reparation when the breach of the Law of Nations appears evidently; at any rate, it is just that the individual should not suffer. He believed the amount of the damages that would come within the meaning of this resolution, would not be very considerable.

Mr. M.'s resolutions being seconded, were presented and read by the Clerk.

Mr. W. SMITH rose to make some remarks on the observations of Mr. MADISON, when a motion was made by Mr. FITZSIMONS, that the committee should rise, and report progress, and that the House should give order for printing the resolutions.

After some further remarks by two or three members, Mr. MADISON said he had no wish to precipitate the discussion; he was content that the committee should now rise, and that a future early day should be assigned.

MONDAY, January 6.

JAMES GILLESPIE, from North Carolina, appeared, produced his credentials, and took his seat in the House.

_Pay of Soldiers._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the bill for completing and better supporting the Military Establishment of the United States. The bill being read,

On the clause of the bill for augmenting the pay of the soldiers from three to four dollars per month, Mr. IRVINE proposed an addition of a fifth dollar, which seemed to meet the unanimous sense of the members; but Mr. CLARK thought this last augmentation too great. They might, in this way of proceeding, raise the pay in time to ten dollars a month.

Mr. SCOTT was of opinion that there was no just proportion between the wages of ordinary labor and that of military service. He could not hire a workman, who was to sleep at peace in his bed, and to dine at a good table, for the pay that was given to a soldier for enduring the hardships of his dangerous profession. An augmentation of their pay would flatter the troops. It would put them in good humor; and therefore he hoped that the five dollars would be carried through the House.

Mr. SMILIE said, that the expense of living had been considerably raised in every part of the United States. The pay of the soldiers ought, in common justice, to be advanced in an equal degree with that of the other persons employed in the service of the State. Congress had lately received a petition from some gentlemen employed in the public offices of Philadelphia. The officers of the army had been talking of a similar necessity of an advance in their pay. The United States ought to pay well, that they might obtain good men. Many recruits had, upon late occasions, enlisted, and several of them in Philadelphia, who never should have been admitted into the Military Establishment of any nation whatever.

Mr. WADSWORTH did not see any reason for the proposed additional dollar per month. If he had thought it necessary, he should have been very ready to mention it. In the States north of Pennsylvania, the wages of a common laborer were not, upon the whole, superior to those of a common soldier. It had been alleged that, by augmenting the pay of the troops, we should get better men. This was a doctrine which he, for one, did not understand. The present Western Army were as good troops as ever went into the field, and much better than the late Continental Army. Men of a sober character did not and would not enlist. Recruits might have very good morals, and it was certain that many honest men did not love labor. Curiosity, levity, the heat of youth, and other very excusable motives, sent people to the army; but it never was, nor never will be, the place where a thoughtful and industrious private man would be ambitious to exert his talents. For this reason, he was convinced that to enlarge the pay would answer no good purpose. As to the militia, who were, many of them, substantial people, it was in vain to imagine that they would fulfil the end of an army in the Indian war. They had been tried, and the experiment had failed. He again adverted to the impossibility of supplying the ranks with recruits above the most ordinary classes of life. He never had seen an army, such as it was believed that the additional dollar would assemble, and he despaired ever to see such an army. There was, however, an act of bounty, which might be of infinite service to the troops, and which he should take a future opportunity of moving. He referred to a provision for the widows and children of such soldiers as should happen to lose their lives in the service.