Chapter LXV: Introduction (64)

Mr. LYMAN vindicated the inhabitants of the frontier. If the Indians are so unfortunate as to be the dupes of other nations, (viz: the Spaniards and British,) that is not our fault. The frontier people, from time to time, have done every thing in their power to keep them in peace.

Mr. HILLHOUSE opposed the amendment.

Mr. MCDOWELL said, that weekly and daily murders were committed by the Creeks in the district of Mero and in the South-western Territory. Do the United States avenge these murders? No. Do they demand back the property carried off? No. Instead of any satisfaction to the people, their characters are abused on this floor. The frontier people know that their happiness consists in peace, and, therefore, cultivate it as much as they can. He took a general view of the subject, and explained the insignificance of the posts as at present held by the troops of the United States for any purpose of protection. He noticed the inveterate hatred of the Indians against the whites, and their innate thirst of blood.

Mr. MOORE went on the same grounds.

Mr. GILES did not like the harsh style assumed by some gentlemen in speaking of the frontier settlers. A hundred years hence these people would preponderate over this part of the Continent. He represented an Atlantic part of the Union, but, at the same time, he would carefully avoid any thing that might offend the Western people. The first settlers in this country were, when they first landed, frontier settlers. For his own part, he believed that the war between the whites and the Indians would be eternal. He said, that, from some intelligence received this day, there was reason to believe that a war with the Creeks might soon be expected.

Mr. WADSWORTH.--Gentlemen have a great disposition to husband our little time, and I need not mention their manner of doing it. He said that he was willing to grant protection to the frontiers, but not to give leave, as by the amendment proposed, for an eternal war. He thought it calculated to drive the gentlemen on each side of this question into such opposite extremes, that they would never meet again upon the subject. He was willing to grant any degree of protection, but nothing for conquest. He said that the ancestors of the people now in the Atlantic part of the country were once frontier people, and he believed them to have been neither worse nor better than the present settlers, who are in the same situation. We are told of murders and robberies committed by the Indians; but the accounts of some of the officers employed by Government vary a little from this, and give room to suspect that there may be some error on both sides. He did not believe that this amendment would pass; but, if it should do so, it would widen the difference of opinion in the House.

Mr. PAGE was for the amendment.

Mr. CARNES could not conceive the reason why all regulations made in this House were for Indians only, as if the whites were constantly the aggressors. He asked if the Creeks performed a single tittle of the treaty of New York, about which there had been so much parade? No. The only design of Indians in making a peace is to get presents, for these they always get. As soon as these are spent they commit a new set of murders, in the hopes of another treaty. Thus they always have gone on, and always will go on, from murders to treaties, and from treaties to murders. Mr. C. complained that a gentleman from Maryland (Mr. MURRAY) had some days ago called the frontier people semi-savages. He hoped that such an expression would never again be used in that House. As to the treaty of New York, he might be told that the Creeks restored a number of women and children. He knew that; but he also knew that, before they did so, the relations of those people were obliged to put their hands in their pockets and pay large sums for their redemption, as the prisoners would not have been delivered up in consequence of the treaty of New York. This bill, without the amendment of Mr. VENABLE, would be an encouragement to the savages to come over the line and murder with impunity.

Mr. SCOTT was entirely in favor of the amendment. If the resolution passes without the amendment houses will soon be smoking and blood running. He believed that the subject in question was beyond the reach of human wisdom to regulate. He thought that striking out the amendment would only encourage the Indians to come in a body across the line. This they were never afraid of doing. The only thing which they feared was a pursuit, and this was to be effectually prevented by striking out the amendment. Was there ever such a thing heard of before as that, when the savages have carried off a man's wife and children, he must not be at liberty to pursue them? It would be the most frightful thing imaginable for the House to pass a law declaring such a pursuit criminal. Mr. S. could figure a case where the farm of a settler might come close to the Indian line, and the Indian might stand on the other side of the line and shoot him, and his neighbors would not be at liberty to pursue the murderer. Mr. S. said, that in that part of the country where he resided (Washington county) nothing of this kind was to be feared, as the line was at a sufficient distance from the cultivated lands, but there were other places on the frontier of the United States where this might happen. He said that no Christian nation had a right to ask better terms than this amendment offered to the savages. Stay upon your own side of the line and you are safe, but, if you cross over to us, we shall cross over in pursuit of you. This was fair play. If the resolution passed without the amendment, Mr. S. said that the Indians would immediately encamp close on their side of the line, and lie in watch there for whole months together, till they found a safe opportunity of crossing.

Mr. MURRAY said, he would make a remark or two on the criticism of the gentleman from Georgia, who had felt affected by an expression of his a few days since, when he called some of the people of the frontier "semi-savages." He did so, and he felt the expression not inapplicable. He confined the import of this expression exclusively to those upon the frontier who lead an unstationary life--who press forward into the deeper wilderness, by the new waves of advancing population, and live the life of savages without their virtues. He begged leave to call the gentleman's attention to a declaration of his own, last session, to justify this expression, which he used more to designate a peculiar than a general character of the people in the region to which he applied it. The gentleman said, he did not value the lives of one hundred Indians as much as the life of one white man, or words to that extent. [This was in a debate just before the close of the last session. The words of Mr. CARNES were, "I would not give the life of one white man for that of fifty Indians."] Mr. MURRAY said, he had two points always in his view when the frontier was a subject in that House--protection to the frontier against the hostility of the Indians, and restraint upon the whites to prevent the occasions of war against the savages. He had given every testimony to the first by supporting every measure for their defence; that he represented a district perfectly beyond the danger of the Indians, was proof that he was actuated in his votes for appropriation and force by no other motive than that which belonged to every man there who supported the great principle of Government, that the whole must protect the parts. He wished to see such a system established, combining these two points, as would give complete protection against the Indians, and yet restrain the whites from violating peace. He wished to see the day when the arms of the Government might, without a crime, strike a whole tribe, if that tribe or its members waged war on the frontiers. But, to do this, it was necessary to place our relative situation so as that justice might be secured. He wished to adopt a regulation like the present, to prevent our fellow-citizens from the gratification of private revenge, the source from whence so much blood is shed. In order to justify exemplary punishment on Indian tribes, you must first be in a situation to restrain the whites from doing injustice to them. You must do what all nations have done, when, from the general or local state of civilization, private war disturbs public tranquillity--you must restrain the right of private war, by placing the power of vengeance out of the reach of individuals, and in the hands of Government. Nor did this idea go at all to restrain that inalienable right of resistance against imminent danger, which was sanctioned by the law of nature. The picture drawn by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. SCOTT,) with his accustomed ability and force, was certainly an interesting one--were an encampment of Indians to be heard in the woods near a settlement, after any evidence of hostility, he did not doubt but the neighbors would be perfectly justifiable in changing the scene of blood from the cottage to the camp--if the amendment which actually arms all the passions of revenge with the rights of law, be rejected, you will attain one of the great objects of frontier policy--the ability to restrain the right of private war, from which public war arises as a consequence. The Government will, when this ability to restrain is complete, become responsible for the protection of the whites against the savages. Until that is accomplished, he did not believe Government could, either in justice or policy, expend treasure or use force, when uncertain of the justice of the cause. He therefore hoped that the amendment would be rejected.

Mr. FINDLAY was for the amendment, and mentioned several examples to prove the cruelty and perfidy of the Indians.

The amendment itself was in these words: "Unless it shall be in immediate pursuit of the Indians who have recently committed hostilities."

Mr. MADISON did not think the question explicit; he therefore proposed another, which was to prevent the pursuers from coming within a certain number of miles of an Indian town. He was extremely doubtful whether his amendment or any other would effectually answer the end proposed. He was convinced that no law of any kind would be able to hinder people from crossing the line in pursuit of Indians, who might have carried off their families.

Mr. HARPER said, that however little time the House had to spare, and however long the discussion might have been, he could not help trespassing on their patience for a short time to deliver his sentiments, as he thought himself tolerably acquainted with the subject. He expressly denied that the Indians ever committed any murder without previous provocation. The process is shortly this: An Indian crosses the line and steals a horse. And as long as Indians exist they will always steal horses. The man to whom the horse belonged collects as many of his neighbors as he thinks sufficient, pursues the Indian, and, not contented with recovering his horse, he kills the thief. The Indians, who have no such sacred ideas of property, immediately come over the line, and in revenge murder a number of innocent people. Indian murders are not unprovoked. They are not of that stamp. Mr. H. considered the amendment of Mr. VENABLE as a source of endless confusion. Any man, if it passed, might cross the Indian line as often as he thought proper, and say that he was in pursuit of Indians with prisoners. I undertake, (said he,) if you will give me a hundred dollars, to go to the frontier and get a witness who will come into a Court of Justice and swear that on such a day ten Indians came over the line in arms. Mr. H. said he was personally acquainted with the frontiers. He had a high respect for the inhabitants, there were many very worthy people among them; but likewise many others of a very different kind. This amendment will set open a door to all sorts of fraud and mischief. Mr. H. honored the sentiments of patriotism that gave rise to it, but he could not possibly agree to the propriety of its insertion.

Mr. WHITE, the member from the South-western Territory, said, that he had to complain of the slaughter of near four hundred citizens under the auspices of your Government. He felt himself much affected, and as to the doctrine of Indian killing, only in retaliation, he denied it altogether. The love of blood was hereditary in them. When the gentleman says that with a hundred dollars in his pocket, he can find ten men on the frontiers--[Mr. HARPER explained, that he only said he could find a witness.] Well, (said Mr. W.) if the gentleman did not mean a reflection on the frontiers, he meant nothing at all. I know not how well the gentleman may be practised in the arts of subornation, but I myself know of no such man. [Mr. HARPER.--I expected the gentleman would confine himself to a decent answer.] Mr. W. proceeded to observe that no man acquainted with the frontiers would have made any such assertion as the gentleman had done. He was likewise extremely surprised at the gentleman from Maryland, for having persisted in affirming that many of the frontier people were semi-savages.

The yeas and nays were now taken on the amendment, which was lost by a majority of 7--yeas 39, nays 46, as follows:

YEAS.--James Armstrong, Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin,
Thomas Blount, Thomas P. Carnes, Gabriel Christie, Thomas
Claiborne, William J. Dawson, George Dent, Samuel Dexter,
Gabriel Duvall, Benjamin Edwards, William Findlay,
Christopher Greenup, William B. Grove, George Hancock,
Carter B. Harrison, John Heath, William Irvine, Matthew
Locke, William Lyman, Nathaniel Macon, Joseph Mcdowell,
Alexander Mebane, William Montgomery, Andrew Moore, Peter
Muhlenberg, Joseph Neville, Anthony New, Alexander D. Orr,
John Page, Thomas Scott, John Smilie, Thomas Sprigg, Thos.
Tredwell, Philip Van Cortlandt, Abraham Venable, Francis
Walker, Richard Winn, and Joseph Winston.

NAYS.--Fisher Ames, John Beatty, Elias Boudinot,
Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Lambert Cadwalader,
David Cobb, Peleg Coffin, Joshua Coit, Henry Dearborn,
Thomas Fitzsimons, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, Nicholas
Gilman, Henry Glenn, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Robert
Goodloe Harper, James Hillhouse, William Hindman, Samuel
Holten, John Hunter, Aaron Kitchell, John Wilkes Kittera,
Amasa Learned, James Madison, Francis Malbone, William Vans
Murray, Nathaniel Niles, Andrew Pickens, Theodore Sedgwick,
John S. Sherburne, Jeremiah Smith, Israel Smith, Wm. Smith,
Zephaniah Swift, George Thatcher, Uriah Tracy, Jonathan
Trumbull, John E. Van Allen, Peter Van Gaasbeck, Peleg
Wadsworth, Jeremiah Wadsworth, John Watts, Benjamin
Williams, and Paine Wingate.

Mr. GILES, who had been in the House during the whole debate, had gone out just before the question was put, and returning immediately after the names had been called, asked leave to vote. The rule of the House was read by the SPEAKER, which is that no member shall vote who was not present at putting of the question. Mr. G., on this account, was not allowed a vote.

Mr. CARNES then moved to amend the said resolution by adding to the end thereof the following words:

"Unless it shall be in continuation of a pursuit to a
distance not exceeding ---- miles beyond the line of the
particular Indians who shall have recently committed
murder, or may be carrying off captives or plunder."

It was resolved in the affirmative.

The said resolution, as amended, was then again read, and agreed to by the House, as follows:

_Resolved_, That all persons who, unauthorized by law, and with hostile intent, may be found in arms on any lands allotted or secured to the Indians by treaties between the United States and any Indian tribes, shall, on conviction thereof, forfeit a sum not exceeding ---- dollars, and be imprisoned not exceeding ---- months, unless it shall be in continuation of a pursuit to a distance not exceeding ---- miles beyond the line of the particular Indians who shall have recently committed murder, or may be carrying off captives or plunder.

The second resolution being again read, and amended, was, on the question put thereupon, agreed to by the House, as follows:

_Resolved_, That it shall be lawful for the military force of the United States to apprehend every person or persons found in arms as aforesaid, and him or them to convey to the civil authority of the United States, within some one of the States, who shall, by such authority, be secured to be tried in manner and form as is provided in and by the act entitled, "An act to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes:" _Provided_, that no person shall be confined after his arrest, and before his removal, more than ---- days.

_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in pursuant to the said resolutions, and that Mr. SEDGWICK, Mr. MADISON, and Mr. HILLHOUSE, do prepare, and bring in the same.

TUESDAY, March 3.

_Adjournment._

_Ordered_, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform them that this House, having completed the business before them, are now about to adjourn without day; and that the Clerk of this House do go with the said message.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have appointed a committee, on their part, jointly, with such committee as may be appointed on the part of this House, to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and inform him that Congress is ready to adjourn without day, unless he may have any further communications to make to them.

The House proceeded to consider the said message: Whereupon,

_Resolved_, That this House doth agree to the resolution of the Senate for the appointment of a joint committee of the two Houses, to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and inform him of the intended recess of Congress; and that Mr. BOUDINOT, Mr. SEDGWICK, and Mr. TRUMBULL, be of the committee appointed on the part of this House.

On a motion made and seconded,

"That the thanks of this House be presented to Frederick
Augustus Muhlenberg, in testimony of their approbation of
his conduct in discharging the arduous and important duties
assigned him while in the chair:"

It was resolved unanimously: Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER made his acknowledgments to the House in manner following:

"GENTLEMEN: I feel myself highly honored by this
distinguished mark of your approbation of my conduct in the
station you were pleased to assign unto me; and although I
am conscious that my feeble efforts do not merit so
precious a reward, yet permit me to assure you that it has
made a lasting impression on my mind, and I shall ever
esteem it with the most unfeigned satisfaction.

"Gentlemen, I sincerely thank you; may every happiness
attend you; may you long continue to enjoy the confidence
of your fellow-citizens; and may you meet with their just
applause of having deserved well of your country."

Mr. BOUDINOT, from the joint committee appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and inform him of the intended recess of Congress, reported that the committee had performed that service, and that the PRESIDENT signified to them that he had no further communication to make during the present session: Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House _sine die_.

FOURTH CONGRESS.--FIRST SESSION.

HELD IN THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, DECEMBER 7, 1795.

LIST OF MEMBERS.

SENATORS.

_New Hampshire._--John Langdon, S. Livermore.

_Vermont._--Elijah Paine, Moses Robinson.

_Massachusetts._--George Cabot, Caleb Strong.

_Rhode Island._--William Bradford, Theodore Foster.

_Connecticut._--Oliver Ellsworth, Jonathan Trumbull.

_New York._--Aaron Burr, Rufus King.

_New Jersey._--F. Frelinghuysen, John Rutherford.

_Pennsylvania._--William Bingham, James Ross.

_Delaware._--Henry Latimer, John Vining.

_Maryland._--John Henry, Richard Potts.

_Virginia._--Stevens T. Mason, Henry Tazewell.

_North Carolina._--Timothy Bloodworth, Alexander Martin.

_South Carolina._--Pierce Butler, Jacob Read.

_Georgia._--James Gunn, George Walton.

_Kentucky._--John Brown, Humphrey Marshall.

REPRESENTATIVES.

_New Hampshire._--Abiel Foster, Nicholas Gilman, J. S. Sherburne, Jeremiah Smith, Paine Wingate.

_Vermont._--Daniel Buck, Israel Smith.

_Massachusetts._--Fisher Ames, Theop. Bradbury, Henry Dearborn, Dwight Foster, Nathaniel Freeman, Benjamin Goodhue, George Leonard, Samuel Lyman, William Lyman, John Read, T. Sedgwick, George Thatcher, Joseph B. Varnum, P. Wadsworth.

_Rhode Island._--Benjamin Bourne, Francis Malbone.

_Connecticut._--Joshua Coit, C. Goodrich, Roger Griswold, James Hillhouse, Nathaniel Smith, Zephaniah Swift, Uriah Tracy.

_New York._--Theodorus Bailey, William Cooper, Ezekiel Gilbert, Henry Glenn, John Hathorn, J. N. Havens, E. Livingston, John E. Van Allen, Philip Van Cortlandt, John Williams.

_New Jersey._--Jonathan Dayton, Thomas Henderson, Aaron Kitchell, Isaac Smith, Mark Thompson.

_Pennsylvania._--David Bard, George Ege, William Findlay, Albert Gallatin, Andrew Gregg, Thomas Hartley, Daniel Heister, John W. Kittera, Samuel Maclay, Frederick A. Muhlenberg, John Richards, Samuel Sitgreaves, John Swanwick, Richard Thomas.

_Delaware._--John Paton.

_Maryland._--Gabriel Christie, Jeremiah Crabb, George Dent, Gabriel Duvall, William Hindman, Samuel Smith, Thomas Sprigg, William Vans Murray.

_Virginia._--Richard Brent, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, John Clopton, Isaac Coles, William B. Giles, George Hancock, Carter B. Harrison, John Heath, John George Jackson, Andrew Moore, Anthony New, John Nicholas, John Page, Josiah Parker, Francis Preston, Robert Rutherford, A. B. Venable.

_North Carolina._--Thomas Blount, Nathan Bryan, Dempsey Burges, Jesse Franklin, James Gillespie, William B. Grove, James Holland, Matthew Locke, Nathaniel Macon, Absalom Tatom.

_South Carolina._--Lemuel Benton, Samuel Earle, Wade Hampton, R. G. Harper, William Smith, Richard Winn.

_Georgia._--A. Baldwin, John Milledge.

_Tennessee._--Andrew Jackson.

_Kentucky._--Christopher Greenup.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.

MONDAY, December 7, 1795.

The following Senators appeared, and took their seats:

JOHN LANGDON and SAMUEL LIVERMORE, from New Hampshire.

CALEB STRONG and GEORGE CABOT, from Massachusetts.

THEODORE FOSTER, from Rhode Island.

OLIVER ELLSWORTH and JONATHAN TRUMBULL, from Connecticut.

MOSES ROBINSON, from Vermont.

RUFUS KING, from New York.

JAMES ROSS and WILLIAM BINGHAM, from Pennsylvania.

HENRY LATIMER, from Delaware.

HENRY TAZEWELL and STEVENS T. MASON, from Virginia.

ALEXANDER MARTIN and TIMOTHY BLOODWORTH, from North Carolina.

PIERCE BUTLER and JACOB READ, from South Carolina.

The VICE PRESIDENT being absent, the Senate proceeded to the election of a PRESIDENT _pro tempore_, as the constitution provides, and HENRY TAZEWELL was duly elected.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and acquaint him that a quorum of the Senate is assembled, and that, in the absence of the VICE PRESIDENT, they have elected HENRY TAZEWELL President _pro tempore_.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives that a quorum of the Senate is assembled, and ready to proceed to business; and that, in the absence of the VICE PRESIDENT, they have elected HENRY TAZEWELL President _pro tempore_.

_Ordered_, That Messrs. READ and CABOT be a joint committee on the part of the Senate, together with such committee as the House of Representatives may appoint on their part, to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and notify him that a quorum of the two Houses is assembled, and ready to receive any communications that he may be pleased to make to them.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that a quorum of the House is assembled; that they have elected JONATHAN DAYTON their Speaker; and that they have concurred in the appointment of a joint committee to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and acquaint him that the two Houses of Congress are assembled, and are ready to receive any communications that he may be pleased to lay before them.

Mr. READ, from the joint committee appointed for that purpose, reported that they had waited on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and had notified him that a quorum of the two Houses of Congress were assembled; and the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES acquainted the committee that he would meet the two Houses in the Representatives' Chamber at 12 o'clock to-morrow.

TUESDAY, December 8.

HUMPHREY MARSHALL, from the State of Kentucky, attended.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the House are now ready to meet the Senate in the Chamber of that House, to receive such communications as the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES shall be pleased to make to them.

Whereupon, the Senate repaired to the Chamber of the House of Representatives for the purpose above expressed.

The Senate then returned to their own Chamber, and a copy of the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to both Houses of Congress was read, as follows:

_Fellow-Citizens of the Senate, and of the House of
Representatives:_

I trust I do not deceive myself, while I indulge the
persuasion that I have never met you at any period, when,
more than at the present, the situation of our public
affairs has afforded just cause for mutual congratulation,
and for inviting you to join with me in profound gratitude
to the Author of all good for the numerous and
extraordinary blessings we enjoy.

The termination of the long, expensive, and distressing war
in which we have been engaged with certain Indians
north-west of the Ohio, is placed in the option of the
United States, by a treaty which the commander of our army
has concluded, provisionally, with the hostile tribes in
that region.

In the adjustment of the terms, the satisfaction of the
Indians was deemed an object worthy no less of the policy
than of the liberality of the United States, as the
necessary basis of durable tranquillity. The object, it is
believed, has been fully attained. The articles agreed upon
will immediately be laid before the Senate, for their
consideration.

Contemplating the internal situation, as well as the
external relations, of the United States, we discover equal
cause for contentment and satisfaction. While many of the
nations of Europe, with their American dependencies, have
been involved in a contest unusually bloody, exhausting,
and calamitous; in which the evils of foreign war have been
aggravated by domestic convulsions and insurrection; in
which many of the arts most useful to society have been
exposed to discouragement and decay; in which scarcity of
subsistence has embittered other sufferings; while even the
anticipations of a return of the blessings of peace and
repose are alloyed by the sense of heavy and accumulating
burdens which press upon all the departments of industry,
and threaten to clog the future springs of Government; our
favored country, happy in a striking contrast, has enjoyed
general tranquillity--a tranquillity the more satisfactory,
because maintained at the expense of no duty. Faithful to
ourselves, we have violated no obligation to others. Our
agriculture, commerce, and manufactures, prosper beyond
former example; the molestations of our trade (to prevent a
continuance of which, however, very pointed remonstrances
have been made) being overbalanced by the aggregate
benefits which it derives from a neutral position. Our
population advances with a celerity which, exceeding the
most sanguine calculations, proportionally augments our
strength and resources, and guarantees our future security.
Every part of the Union displays indications of rapid and
various improvement; and with burdens so light as scarcely
to be perceived; with resources fully adequate to our
present exigencies; with Governments founded on the genuine
principles of rational liberty; and with mild and wholesome
laws--is it too much to say, that our country exhibits a
spectacle of national happiness never surpassed, if ever
before equalled?

_Gentlemen:_

Among the objects which will claim your attention in the
course of the session, a review of our Military
Establishment is not the least important. It is called for
by the events which have changed, and may be expected still
further to change, the relative situation of our frontiers.
In this review, you will doubtless allow due weight to the
considerations that the questions between us and certain
foreign powers are not yet finally adjusted; that the war
in Europe is not yet terminated; and that our Western
posts, when recovered, will demand provision for
garrisoning and securing them. A statement of our present
military force will be laid before you by the Department
of War.

With the review of our army establishment is naturally
connected that of the militia. It will merit inquiry, what
imperfections in the existing plan further experience may
have unfolded. The subject is of so much moment, in my
estimation, as to excite a constant solicitude that the
consideration of it may be renewed until the greatest
attainable perfection shall be accomplished. Time is
wearing away some advantages for forwarding the object,
while none better deserves the persevering attention of the
public councils.

While we indulge the satisfaction which the actual
condition of our Western borders so well authorizes, it is
necessary that we should not lose sight of an important
truth, which continually receives new confirmations,
namely: that the provisions heretofore made with a view to
the protection of the Indians from the violences of the
lawless part of our frontier inhabitants are insufficient.
It is demonstrated that these violences can now be
perpetrated with impunity; and it can need no argument to
prove, that, unless the murdering of Indians can be
restrained by bringing the murderers to condign punishment,
all the exertions of the Government to prevent destructive
retaliations by the Indians will prove fruitless, and all
our present agreeable prospects illusory. The frequent
destruction of innocent women and children, who are chiefly
the victims of retaliation, must continue to shock
humanity, and an enormous expense to drain the Treasury of
the Union.

To enforce upon the Indians the observance of justice, it
is indispensable that there shall be competent means of
rendering justice to them. If these means can be devised by
the wisdom of Congress, and especially if there can be
added an adequate provision for supplying the necessities
of the Indians, on reasonable terms--a measure, the mention
of which I the more readily repeat, as in all the
conferences with them they urge it with solicitude--I
should not hesitate to entertain a strong hope of rendering
our tranquillity permanent. I add, with pleasure, that the
probability even of their civilization is not diminished by
the experiments which have been thus far made under the
auspices of Government. The accomplishment of this work, if
practicable, will reflect undecaying lustre on our national
character, and administer the most grateful consolations
that virtuous minds can know.

_Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:_

The state of our revenue, with the sums which have been
borrowed and reimbursed pursuant to different acts of
Congress, will be submitted from the proper Department,
together with an estimate of the appropriations necessary
to be made for the service of the ensuing year.

Whether measures may not be advisable to re-enforce the
provision for the redemption of the public debt, will
naturally engage your examination. Congress have
demonstrated their sense to be, and it were superfluous to
repeat mine, that whatsoever will tend to accelerate the
honorable extinction of our public debt, accords as much
with the true interest of our country as with the general
sense of our constituents.

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

The statements which will be laid before you relative to
the Mint will show the situation of that institution, and
the necessity of some further Legislative provisions for
carrying the business of it more completely into effect,
and for checking abuses which appear to be arising in
particular quarters.

The progress of providing materials for the frigates, and
in building them; the state of the fortifications of our
harbors; the measures which have been pursued for obtaining
proper sites for arsenals, and for replenishing our
magazines with military stores; and the steps which have
been taken towards the execution of the law for opening a
trade with the Indians--will likewise be presented for the
information of Congress.

Temperate discussion of the important subjects which may
arise in the course of the session, and mutual forbearance
where there is a difference of opinion, are too obvious and
necessary for the peace, happiness, and welfare of our
country, to need any recommendation of mine.

G. WASHINGTON.

UNITED STATES, _December_ 8, 1795.

_Ordered_, That Messrs. KING, ELLSWORTH, and CABOT, be a committee to report the draft of an Address to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in answer to his Speech this day to both Houses of Congress.

WEDNESDAY, December 9.

The VICE PRESIDENT of the United States attended.

The following motion was made by Mr. MARTIN:

"_Resolved_, That, in conformity to a resolution of the
Senate of the United States, passed the 20th day of
February, 1794, the gallery of the Senate Chamber be
permitted to be opened every morning, subject to the
restrictions therein mentioned, a suitable gallery having
been erected and provided in the Senate Chamber, in the
late recess of Congress, for that purpose."

And, the motion being amended, it was

_Resolved_, That, in conformity to a resolution of the Senate of the United States, passed the 20th day of February, 1794, the gallery of the Senate Chamber be permitted to be opened every morning, subject to the restrictions in said resolution mentioned.

THURSDAY, December 10.

JOHN BROWN, from the State of Kentucky, and FREDERICK FRELINGHUYSEN, from the State of New Jersey, severally attended.

Mr. KING, from the committee appointed for that purpose, reported the draft of an Address to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in answer to his Speech to both Houses of Congress, at the opening of the session, which was read, and ordered to lie for consideration until to-morrow.

FRIDAY, December 11.

ELIJAH PAINE, from the State of Vermont, attended.

_Address to the President._

The Senate took into consideration the report made by the committee, of an Address to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in answer to his Speech to both Houses of Congress, at the opening of the session, which is as follows:

SIR: It is with peculiar satisfaction that we are informed
by your Speech to the two Houses of Congress, that the long
and expensive war in which we have been engaged with the
Indians north-west of the Ohio is in a situation to be
finally terminated; and, though we view with concern the
danger of an interruption of the peace so recently
confirmed with the Creeks, we indulge the hope, that the
measures that you have adopted to prevent the same, if
followed by those Legislative provisions that justice and
humanity equally demand, will succeed in laying the
foundation of a lasting peace with the Indian tribes on the
Southern as well as on the Western frontiers.

The confirmation of our Treaty with Morocco, and the
adjustment of a Treaty of Peace with Algiers, in
consequence of which our captive fellow-citizens shall be
delivered from slavery, are events that will prove no less
interesting to the public humanity than they will be
important in extending and securing the navigation and
commerce of our country.

As a just and equitable conclusion of our depending
negotiations with Spain will essentially advance the
interest of both nations, and thereby cherish and confirm
the good understanding and friendship which we have at all
times desired to maintain, it will afford us real pleasure
to receive an early confirmation of our expectations on
this subject.

The interesting prospect of our affairs, with regard to the
foreign powers between whom and the United States
controversies have subsisted, is not more satisfactory than
the review of our internal situation: if from the former we
derive an expectation of the extinguishment of all the
causes of external discord that have heretofore endangered
our tranquillity, and on terms consistent with our national
honor and safety, in the latter we discover those numerous
and wide-spread tokens of prosperity which, in so peculiar
a manner, distinguish our happy country.

Circumstances thus every way auspicious demand our
gratitude, and sincere acknowledgments to Almighty God, and
require that we should unite our efforts in imitation of
your enlightened, firm, and persevering example, to
establish and preserve the peace, freedom, and prosperity
of our country.

The objects which you have recommended to the notice of the
Legislature will, in the course of the session, receive our
careful attention, and, with a true zeal for the public
welfare, we shall cheerfully co-operate in every measure
that shall appear to us best calculated to promote the
same.

JOHN ADAMS,

_Vice President of the United States,
and President of the Senate._

The Address was taken up by paragraphs.

The fourth and fifth paragraphs were moved to be struck out by Mr. MASON.[60]

Mr. MASON observed, that he had hoped nothing contained in the Address reported as an answer to the PRESIDENT's Speech, would have been such as to force the Senate to precipitate decisions. The two clauses he objected to disappointed him in that hope. They were calculated to bring again into view the important subject which occupied the Senate during their June session. This he conceived could answer no good purpose; the minority on that occasion were not now to be expected to recede from the opinions they then held, and they could not therefore join in the indirect self-approbation which the majority appeared to wish for, and which was most certainly involved in the two clauses which he should hope would be struck out. If his motion were agreed to, the remainder of the Address would, in his opinion, stand unexceptionable. He did not see, for his part, that our situation was every way auspicious. Notwithstanding the treaty, our trade is grievously molested.

Mr. KING observed, that the principal features observable in the answer reported to the PRESIDENT's Address, were to keep up that harmony of intercourse which ought to subsist between the Legislature and the PRESIDENT, and to express confidence in the undiminished firmness and love of country which always characterize our chief Executive Magistrate. He objected to striking out especially the first clause, because founded on undeniable truth. It only declares that our prospects, as to our external relations, are not more satisfactory than a review of our internal situation would prove. Was not this representation true, he asked; could it be controverted? This clause, he contended, contained nothing reasonably objectionable; it did not say as much as the second, to which only most of the objections of the member up before him applied, an answer to which he should defer, expecting that a question would be put on each in order.

The Chair requested that the motion should be reduced to writing. Mr. MASON accordingly reduced it to writing, and it went to striking out both clauses at once.

Mr. MASON agreed most cordially that the situation of our external relations were not more a cause of joy than our situation at home. But the obvious meaning of the clause, he conceived, was an indirect approval of our situation relative to external concerns; and to this he could not give his assent, as he did not consider their aspect as prosperous or auspicious.

Mr. BUTLER said, that when the committee was appointed to draft an answer, he hoped they would have used such general terms as to have secured a unanimous vote. He was willing to give the Chief Magistrate such an answer as respect to his station entitled him to, but not such a one as would do violence to his regard for the constitution and his duty to his constituents. He could not approve of long and detailed answers, however unexceptionable the Speech might be in matter, and however respectable the character might be from whom it came. He had hoped, from the peculiar situation of the country, and of the Senate, that nothing would have been brought forward in the answer, on the subject which agitated the June Executive session, calculated to wound the feelings of members. He had been disappointed; it was evident that some members of the Senate could not give their voice in favor of the Address in its present shape, without involving themselves in the most palpable inconsistency.

He had long since, for his own part, declared himself against every article of the treaty, because in no instance is it bottomed on reciprocity, the only honorable basis. After this declaration, how could he, or those who coincided in opinion with him, agree to the present Address without involving themselves in the most palpable inconsistency?

The sentence objected to, notwithstanding the explanation of the gentleman from New York, appeared to him so worded as to lead the citizens at large to believe that the spoliations on our commerce were drawing to a fortunate close. This was not, he conceived, warranted by the existing state of things. Indeed, he protested, he knew no more of the actual situation of the treaty negotiation than the remotest farmer in the Union; could he then declare, he asked, that it was drawing to a happy close? Indeed, from the latest information received, far from our situation having been ameliorated by the negotiations of our Executive, he conceived our trade as much in jeopardy as ever.

As to the internal prosperity, he owned there was some cause for congratulation; but even in this his conviction could not carry him as far as the clauses in the Address seemed to go. In a pecuniary point of view, the country had made a visible progress; but he saw in it no basis of permanent prosperity. There were no circumstances attendant on it that gave a fair hope that the prosperity would be permanent. The chief cause of our temporary pecuniary prosperity is the war in Europe, which occasions the high prices our produce at present commands; when that is terminated, those advantageous prices will of course fall.

Mr. B. now came to speak of the second objectional clause. He regretted whenever a question was brought forward that involved personality in the most indirect manner. He wished always to speak to subjects unconnected with men; but the wording of the clause was unfortunately such as to render allusion to official character unavoidable. He objected principally to the epithet _firm_, introduced into the latter clause, as applied to the Supreme Executive. Why _firmness_? he asked. To what? or to whom? Is it the _manly_ demand of restitution made of Great Britain for her accumulated injuries that called forth the praise? for his own part he could discern no firmness there. Is it for the _undaunted_ and _energetic_ countenance of the cause of France, in her struggle for freeing herself from despotic shackles? He saw no _firmness_ displayed on that occasion. Where then is it to be found? Was it in the opposition to the minority of the Senate and the general voice of the people against the treaty that that _firmness_ was displayed? If it is that _firmness_ in opposing the will of the people, which is intended to be extolled, the vote shall never, said Mr. B., leave the walls of the Senate with _my_ approbation.

Mr. READ said, he was not in the habit of giving a silent vote, and, as many of his constituents were adverse to the instrument to which he had given his assent, he thought this a fit opportunity to say something on the subject.

Gentlemen on the other side had spoken of their feelings; did they suppose, he asked, that those who were in the majority had not feelings? Also, gentlemen declared they would not recede from their former determinations; did they expect that the majority would recede?

He had, he said, taken the question of the treaty in all its aspects, and considered it maturely, and though he lamented that he differed in opinion on that subject with his colleague, and a portion of the people of his State, he nevertheless remained convinced that the ratification of it was advisable: it rescued the country from war and its desolating horrors.

After reading that part of the PRESIDENT's Speech to which the clauses objected to were an echo, he asked, whether any one could say, under the conviction that the measures of Government had prevented a war, that our view of foreign relations was not consolatory? On all hands, he observed, the idea of a war was deprecated; both sides of the House wished to avoid it; then is it not a consolatory reflection to all that its horrors have been averted? Is there a man who does not believe that, had the treaty not been ratified, we should have had war? If the country had been plunged into a war, would it be as flourishing as it is?

The trifling vexations our commerce has sustained are not to compare to the evils of hostility. What good end could have been answered by a war? The Address, in the part under discussion, says no more than that we rejoice at the prospect that the blessings of peace will be preserved; and does not this expectation exist?

Great Britain, in the plenitude of her power, had availed herself of the right she had under the law of nations, of seizing enemies' goods in neutral vessels; but has allowed compensation to some Americans, and a system of mild measures on our part is the best security for further.

But the Senate and the PRESIDENT are the constitutional treaty-making powers. If mistaken in their decisions, they cannot be accused of having been misled by sudden and immatured impressions. He should conceive himself unfit to fill a chair in the Senate, if he suffered himself to be carried away by such impressions. The people could not, in their town meetings, deprived of proper information, possibly form an opinion that deserved weight, and it was the duty of the Executive not to be shaken in their determination by tumultuous proceedings from without. Upon this ground he much approved the PRESIDENT's conduct, and thought it entitled to the epithet, firm.

In local questions, affecting none but the interest of his constituents, he should attend to their voice, but on great national points, he did not consider himself as a Representative from South Carolina, but as a Senator for the Union. In questions of this last kind, even if the wishes of his constituents were unequivocally made known to him, he should not conceive himself bound to sacrifice his opinions to theirs. He viewed the PRESIDENT as standing in this situation, and though he might hear the opinions of the people from every part of the United States, he should not sacrifice to them his own conviction; in this line of conduct he has shown his firmness, and deserves to be complimented for it by the Senate.

Mr. ELLSWORTH was opposed to striking out. The clause records a fact, and if struck out, the Senate deny it. The PRESIDENT asserts it; in the Address reported, the Senate assent; a motion is made to strike out; is it because the truth of it is doubted? It cannot be called an unimportant fact, therefore its omission will not be imputed to oversight. The latter part of the clause expresses our gratitude to Almighty God. Will the Senate refuse to make an acknowledgment of that kind? Do they not admit that He is the source of all good, and can they refuse to acknowledge it? And if so, is it possible that, in admitting the fact and expressing the sentiment, which so naturally flows from it, the Senate should wound the feelings of any friend to his country?

The truth of the fact is as clear as that the sun now shines; the sentiment is unexceptionable; he, therefore, recommended to his friend the mover, not to insist upon striking out merely, but that he should vary the motion, and propose a substitute.

To bring the mind to the point with precision, it was necessary to attend to the wording of the clause. He read it. As to the signification of that part which relates to our foreign concerns, he did not consider it as hypothetical, but a positive declaration of a conviction that their situation is satisfactory, and on that ground he wished to meet the question.

The clause objected to expresses an expectation that the causes of external disagreement which have unhappily existed, will be peaceably done away. He said he had that expectation; many have it not. Those who have it not will negative the clause; those who have it will vote in its favor; the result will be the sense of a majority; the Senate could not be expected, more than on other occasions, to be unanimous; if the declarations contained in those clauses are supported, they will be considered as the sense of the majority of the Senate; others may dissent; but because unanimity could not be obtained, it was no reason why the majority should give a virtual negative to the declaration which they conceived founded on truth.

Mr. TAZEWELL said, the discussion had taken a turn different from that which he expected when he heard the motion. He understood the motion at the time it was made, and still so understood it, as not intending to question the propriety of any thing which was contained in the PRESIDENT's communication to both Houses of Congress. But from what had been said, (by Mr. READ, of South Carolina,) that part of the answer to the PRESIDENT's communication which had given rise to the motion, was intended to have a further operation than he originally believed. He asked what had given rise to the practice of returning an answer of any kind to the PRESIDENT's communication to Congress in the form of an Address? There was nothing, he said, in the constitution, or in any of the fundamental rules of the Federal Government, which required that ceremony from either branch of the Congress. The practice was but an imitation of the ceremonies used upon like occasions in other countries, and was neither required by the constitution, nor authorized by the principles upon which our Government was erected. But having obtained, he did not intend now to disturb it. To allow the utmost latitude to the principle which had begotten the practice, it could only tolerate the ceremony as a compliment to the Chief Magistrate. It could not be permitted to arrest all opinions previous to regular discussions, nor to operate as a means of pledging members to the pursuit of a particular course, which subsequent and more full inquiries might show to be extremely improper. Every answer, therefore, to the PRESIDENT's communication ought to be drawn in terms extremely general, neither seducing the PRESIDENT into a belief that this House would pursue a general recommendation into points not at first contemplated by them, nor pledge themselves to the world that that state of things was just, which time had not permitted them thoroughly to examine. The clauses now under consideration had, at least in one instance, deviated from this principle. They declare to the world, "That the interesting prospect of our affairs with regard to the foreign powers, between whom and the United States controversies have subsisted, is not more satisfactory than the review of our internal situation." The communications from the PRESIDENT have not uttered so bold a sentiment, nor is there any thing in those communications that justifies the assertion of this fact. Placing the treaty with Great Britain out of the question, which seems to have been the uppermost consideration when this sentence was penned, the seizure of our provision vessels since the signature of that treaty, and the unwarrantable imprisonment of our seamen, are acts which cloud our prosperity and happiness. The minds of the Americans must be brought to consider these things as trivial incidents in our political affairs, before the sentence under consideration can be approved. He said he must, therefore, vote for the motion to strike out the two clauses of the answer, in order that some more fit expressions might then be introduced to succeed them. He hoped the answer might be couched in terms just and delicate towards the PRESIDENT, without wounding the feelings of any Senator; and he believed both might be done without any difficulty, after the two clauses were expunged.

After some further observations from Messrs. MASON, BUTLER, and BLOODWORTH, in which the latter expressed the opinion that he did conceive the terms of our peace with Great Britain consistent with the dignity and honor of the United States, the question was put, and decided for striking out--ayes 8, noes 14.

On a further attempt to amend one of the clauses some conversation took place more remarkable for ingenuity than interesting for solidity, being chiefly a debate upon words. The Senate divided on it--7 to 15.

On the question, of agreeing to the Address, it was carried--14 to 8, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Cabot, Ellsworth, Foster,
Frelinghuysen, King, Latimer, Livermore, Marshall, Paine,
Read, Ross, Strong, and Trumbull.

NAYS.--Messrs. Bloodworth, Brown, Butler, Langdon, Martin,
Mason, Robinson, and Tazewell.

_Ordered_, That the committee who prepared the Address wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and desire him to acquaint the Senate at what time and place it will be most convenient for him that it should be presented.

Mr. KING reported, from the committee, that they had waited on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and that he would receive the Address of the Senate to-morrow at 12 o'clock. Whereupon, resolved, that the Senate will, to-morrow at 12 o'clock, wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES accordingly.

SATURDAY, December 12.