Chapter LXVI: Introduction (65)

Agreeably to the resolution of yesterday, the Senate waited on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and the VICE PRESIDENT, in their name, presented the Address then agreed to.

To which the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES was pleased to make the following reply:

GENTLEMEN: With real pleasure I receive your Address,
recognizing the prosperous situation of our public affairs,
and giving assurances of your careful attention to the
objects demanding Legislative consideration; and that, with
a true zeal for the public welfare, you will cheerfully
co-operate in every measure which shall appear to you best
calculated to promote the same.

But I derive peculiar satisfaction from your concurrence
with me in the expressions of gratitude to Almighty God,
which a review of the auspicious circumstances that
distinguish our happy country have excited; and I trust the
sincerity of our acknowledgments will be evinced by a union
of efforts to establish and preserve its peace, freedom,
and prosperity.

G. WASHINGTON.

The Senate returned to their own Chamber, and soon after adjourned.

MONDAY, December 14.

JOHN RUTHERFORD, from New Jersey, attended.

TUESDAY, December 15.

AARON BURR, from New York, and JOHN VINING, from Delaware, severally attended.

WEDNESDAY, December 16.

WILLIAM BRADFORD, from Rhode Island, attended.

FRIDAY, December 18.

GEORGE WALTON, appointed a Senator of the United States by the Executive of the State of Georgia, in place of JAMES JACKSON, resigned, produced his credentials, and, the oath required by law being administered, he took his seat in the Senate.

MONDAY, January 4.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, by Mr. Dandridge, his Secretary. Captain Sedam, of the first Sub-legion, bearing the colors mentioned in the Message:

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

A Letter from the Minister Plenipotentiary of the French
Republic, received on the 22d of the last month, covered an
Address, dated the 21st of October, 1794, from the
Committee of Public Safety to the Representatives of the
United States in Congress; and also informed me that he was
instructed by the Committee to present to the United States
the Colors of France. I therefore proposed to receive them
last Friday, the first day of the new year, a day of
general joy and congratulation. On that day the Minister of
the French Republic delivered the Colors with an Address,
to which I returned an answer. By the latter, the Senate
will see that I have informed the Minister that the Colors
will be deposited with the archives of the United States.
But it seemed to me proper previously to exhibit to the two
Houses of Congress these evidences of the continued
friendship of the French Republic, together with the
sentiments expressed by me on the occasion in behalf of the
United States. They are herewith communicated.

G. WASHINGTON

UNITED STATES, _January_ 4, 1796.

The Message and papers were read; after which the colors were withdrawn, and the Message and papers ordered to lie for consideration.

TUESDAY, January 5.

_Presentation of French Flag._

A motion was made by Mr. TAZEWELL, seconded by Mr. LANGDON, that it be--

"_Resolved by the Senate of the United States in Congress
assembled_, That the President be informed the Senate have
received, with the purest pleasure, the evidences of the
continued friendship of the French Republic, which
accompanied his Message of yesterday.

"That he be requested to assure that magnanimous nation,
through the proper organ, that the Senate unite with him in
all the feelings expressed to the Minister of France, on
the presentation of the Colors of his nation, and devoutly
wish that this symbol of the triumphs and enfranchisement
of that great people, given as a pledge of faithful
friendship, and placed among the evidences and memorials of
the freedom and independence of the United States, may
contribute to cherish and perpetuate the sincere affection
by which the two Republics are so happily united."

Mr. ELLSWORTH moved that these resolutions should lie on the table until to-morrow, that members should have an opportunity of perusing attentively the papers accompanying the Message of the PRESIDENT.

Mr. BUTLER said, that he should very reluctantly, in general cases, oppose a motion of the kind now made; but, on the present occasion, he could not give it his assent. If the resolutions were intricate, or by the question the judgment of the Senate could be committed, he should accord in the wish expressed by the mover; but, as the resolutions go merely to an expression of the sentiments of the House respecting the French Republic, their feelings and judgment must be as ripe for such expression now as they can be at any future period. It was not like a law that was to affect the Senate hereafter; it had nothing to do with the internal situation of the country or municipal regulations; but they only went to express a sympathetic feeling for the French Republic, and a wish to see them enjoy every happiness under the form of government they have lately chosen.

This cannot commit the Senate, he conceived. If the motion for postponement prevailed, it might convey a distrust of the sense of the Senate respecting that Republic. He felt a lively sense towards that nation on account of the glorious cause in which they had embarked; of their gallantry and spirit in their arduous struggle to place men upon a footing they were entitled to, raising them from a state of the most abject and debasing slavery.

He declared himself always ready to express his feelings on the magnanimity of such a people. If other members of the Senate possessed not those feelings, they could now give the resolutions their negative. He did not wish for a postponement, as it might be viewed as in a manner slighting the Republic.

Mr. ELLSWORTH believed there was no real difference of opinion on the subject. All felt an ardent friendship for the French; but one mode of expressing it might be more proper than another. Besides, it might be a doubt whether an expression of the feelings of the Senate on this occasion was necessary--the Representatives had already spoken. He was not, as the member who spoke before him, ready on all occasions to express his sentiments; but only on fit occasions, and then he wished to do it in the most proper manner. The operations of his mind, he confessed, were slow. He wished more time for the perusal of the documents laid before the Senate by the President.

Mr. LIVERMORE was also in favor of postponement.

Mr. LANGDON observed, that since members did so earnestly require time, he should not urge an immediate decision; he should no longer object to a postponement till to-morrow. He was happy to hear gentlemen say there was no difference of sentiment upon the present occasion; he hoped that, upon subjects relative to France, this might always be the case, and that the Senate would not confine itself to empty professions of attachment, but would evince it by substantial deeds.

Mr. TAZEWELL did not wish to press the business to an immediate decision, since members desired time. He confessed he did not expect a motion for a postponement would be made, as the resolutions he offered contained nothing more than the PRESIDENT had expressed on the occasion. However, if it was wished that the Senate should express their sentiments in still stronger language than the PRESIDENT, he should not object.

The opposition to the motion for postponement being withdrawn, it was agreed to.

WEDNESDAY, January 6.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion made yesterday on the Message of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, of the 4th instant, and the presentation of the flag of the French Republic; and,

On motion of Mr. CABOT, seconded by Mr. ELLSWORTH, to expunge these words from the second paragraph of the motion: "that he be requested to assure that magnanimous nation, through the proper organ"--

Mr. STRONG was in favor of striking out. He observed that the communication made to the Senate by the PRESIDENT consisted of two distinct parts, the letter from the French Committee of Safety and the address accompanying the flag. In the letter not one word was said about the flag; it was written in October, '94, and there was probably then no idea of sending one. The letter and the flag only happened to be delivered at the same time; there was no other connection between them. The letter, he said, was in answer to one from this country, and was meant to close a complimentary correspondence. It required no answer; it would puzzle any one to make an answer to it. An attempt was made by the resolution offered, which proved it impossible to answer it. The resolution forsook the contents of the letter, which, he repeated, closed the correspondence. The United States had presented to the National Convention our flag; or rather our Minister (and he was unwilling to question the propriety of his so doing) presented it on behalf of this Government; a French flag was sent in return; then the propriety of an answer on this ground became the sole question. This flag had been delivered to the PRESIDENT, who made an answer on the presentation of it--a complete and perfect answer. He communicated his answer to the Senate. Then was it proper, he asked, that the Executive should be requested to make a second answer, and nearly in the same words? The PRESIDENT, in his answer, expressly says, that he speaks not only his own sentiments, but those of the citizens at large, including, no doubt, the Senate. In this situation of the transaction nothing can be proper to be done by the Senate but to express their opinion of the propriety of his answer; and this would be accomplished by adopting the substance of the resolution, after striking out the words proposed.

There could be (he concluded by observing) no difference of feeling in the Senate on the occasion. The only difference was in the mode of expressing it, and he inclined, for the reasons given, to that which was the object of the motion for striking out.

Mr. ELLSWORTH was also of opinion that the subject divided itself into two distinct parts. The first object was an expression of the pleasure of the Senate at this new evidence of the friendship of France, and joining with the PRESIDENT in all the feelings he had expressed on the occasion. This would be effectually done by entering on the journals the resolution as proposed to be amended. The PRESIDENT received the flag and answered, then communicated the transaction to the Senate.

It appeared, by the papers communicated, he contended, that there was no connection between the letter of the Committee of Public Safety and the flag. He would not say that both were not very important transactions, but they were disconnected. The letter was written much antecedent to the sending of the flag--it was written in '94, and was intended to close a correspondence. The correspondence began by an address from the Convention, while Robespierre was an active member of it. This address was to Congress: the PRESIDENT transmitted it to each House, and they sent it back to the Executive, requesting he would answer it, with expressions of the friendly dispositions of the United States towards France. The resolutions of the Houses and the letter of the Executive were transmitted through Mr. Monroe. The letter now in the view of the Senate is an answer to that, and closes the complimentary correspondence, if it ever can close. Propriety did not require another word from the Senate; indeed, decency did not admit it, for it could not be contended that the correspondence should be kept up _ad infinitum_.

As to the flag, how can it require an answer from the Senate? It was not presented to them by the French Minister, but to the PRESIDENT, who had answered, not only for himself, but for the citizens of the United States; and he imagined it would not be contended that the members of the Senate were not citizens.

It is not advanced, he said, that the PRESIDENT did not express the sentiments of the Senate in the answer to the Minister; on the contrary, his words are borrowed in this resolution. But it is wished he should answer again in the same strain, and this was, in his opinion, neither necessary nor even proper.

Mr. ELLSWORTH next combated the resolution as originally offered as unconstitutional. Nothing, he contended, could be found in the constitution to authorize either branch of the Legislature to keep up any kind of correspondence with a foreign nation. To Congress were given the powers of legislation and the right of declaring war. If authority beyond this is assumed, however trifling the encroachment at first, where will it stop? It might be said, that this was a mere matter of ceremony and form, and, therefore, could do no harm. A correspondence with foreign nations was a business of difficulty and delicacy--the peace and tranquillity of a country may hinge on it. Shall the Senate, because they may think it in one case trifling, or conceive the power ought to be placed in them, assume it? If it was not specially delegated by the constitution, the Senate might, perhaps, but it is positively placed in the hands of the Executive. The people who sent us here, (said Mr. E.) placed their confidence in the PRESIDENT in matters of this nature, and it does not belong to the Senate to assume it.

So forcibly, he said, were both Houses impressed with the impropriety of the Legislature corresponding with any foreign power, that, when it was announced to them that the unfortunate Louis XVI. had accepted the constitution of '89, the communication was sent back to the PRESIDENT, with a request that he would answer it on their behalf, with congratulations and best wishes.

But even this, he considered, they had not strictly a right to do. It was only saving appearances. Neither branch had a right to dictate to the PRESIDENT what he should answer. The constitution left the whole business in his breast. It was wrong to place him in the dilemma of disobliging the Legislature or sacrificing his own discretion. But if such practices had inadvertently been followed, it was full time to secede from them.

He recapitulated, in a few words, and concluded, by observing, that should the motion for striking out prevail, members would still be in order to amend the resolution, if they chose, by adding to the warmth of expression it already contained.

Mr. BUTLER considered the situation into which the member up before him seemed desirous that the Senate should be placed, as highly degrading; they were to be deprived of the right of expressing their own sentiments, they were to have no voice, no will, no opinion of their own, but such as it would please the Executive to express for them.

The only fault he found in the resolve was, that it was not full and expressive enough. He observed, that it appeared the studied desire of one part of the House to cut off all communication between the people of the United States and the people of the French Republic. Their representatives are now told, that they can have no will, no voice, but through the Executive. Their constituents never intended that they should be placed in this ridiculous point of view, and he declared he never could sit under it silently.

He turned to the journals of the Senate to show that in the proceedings in the case of the answer to the communication from Robespierre and others, there was a considerable division in the Senate, and the mode adopted was by a majority only; but did not meet the sense of the Senate very generally.

Upon the presentation of the flag to the PRESIDENT, the Minister particularly observes, that it is for the people of the United States. The PRESIDENT in his answer, speaks of himself and his own feelings. He read part of his answer--"Born in a land of Liberty," &c. He does intimate, he observed, in a cursory manner, that he trusts he speaks the sentiments of his fellow-citizens: but does not attempt to make any professions of either branch of the Legislature, thinking, no doubt, that when the subject came before them, they would speak for themselves.

Suppose, he asked, that the expression of friendship contained in the PRESIDENT's Address on the occasion, fell short of the feelings of the Senate, would they, he asked, adopt the expressions for their own? For his own part, he declared, he could not leave it to others to speak his sentiments, but chose to reserve that right to himself. Even if no communication had been received from the French Republic, no token of attachment, the present period in their affairs, the establishment of a new government, would warrant an address of congratulation. There could be no impropriety in it, unless there were objections to drawing nigher to the Republic. Besides, the address of the Committee of Safety was certainly intended for the Legislature, being directed to the Representatives, unless it could be denied that the Senate were Representatives of the people of the United States.

There was nothing in the constitution, he contended, that could prevent the Legislature from expressing their sentiments: it was not an Executive act, but a mere complimentary answer to a complimentary presentation. If this right was denied them, where would the principle stop? The Senate might be made in time mere automata. It was as proper, he contended, for the Senate to express an opinion on the occasion as for the PRESIDENT or the House of Representatives.

He concluded by observing, that the resolution as offered, said as little as could be said on the occasion, and he never could consent to the striking out, which would cause it to be entered only on the journal, and would be an indirect slight of the French Republic, as the sentiments of the Senate would not be communicated to them.

Mr. TAZEWELL was happy to find no difference in the Senate as to the substance of the resolution. As the form, however, had been made matter of debate, some importance had been given to it which its intrinsic consequence perhaps did not deserve, and it became the Senate to weigh well their decision. It certainly, he said, could not be unknown to the Senate, that unfavorable impressions have travelled abroad respecting their feelings and sentiments towards the French, and he suggested to their consideration whether if the present motion for striking out prevailed, even in the face of their own precedents, it would not give countenance to the surmise. On a former occasion, he stated, a communication was made to the Senate through the PRESIDENT, informing that the King of France had accepted the Crown under the constitution of 1789. The Senate were not content on that occasion with barely approving what the PRESIDENT had done, but requested the PRESIDENT to say in their behalf, that they were happy at the event, and to assure the king of their good will for the prosperity of the French nation and his own. What difference, he asked, was there on that occasion and the present, when the French just adopted and organized a new government? Will it not be said, he asked, that the robes of royalty have charms with the Senate, which the humble habiliments of Democracy do not possess in their eyes, if on the present occasion they should deviate from a precedent established before royalty was abolished? This would be naturally implied, and the Senate, he conceived, should avoid the imputation. There was no necessity pleaded in favor of striking out; if the motion was not insisted on, it would remove impressions which it was useful should be removed, and which he trusted would be removed.

He dwelt on the impropriety of the Senate's rejecting a form of proceeding in this case, not only sanctioned by their own precedent, but by the practice of both the PRESIDENT and Senate. Why, especially, he asked, should they give rise to invidious comparisons between themselves and the other branch? He hoped the motion for striking out would not prevail.

Mr. ELLSWORTH conceived there existed a material difference between the present case and that cited by the member last up. The communication was then to Congress, now to the PRESIDENT, who had only given an account of the transaction to the Senate. He added, however, that the line of conduct pursued by the Senate on the former occasion did not meet his approbation; they expressed hopes which he never thought could be realized, and in the event it proved so; for before the sentiments of the Senate could cross the Atlantic, the unfortunate king and constitution were both over-thrown. This, he argued, should make the Senate wary in their proceedings in analogous cases. Upon the communication from Robespierre, Barrere, and others, the Senate were more cautious, they said nothing about the constitution, but only requested the PRESIDENT to express in their behalf the sentiments of friendship, &c., which the Senate entertained for France. The Senate gave the PRESIDENT a short text on that occasion; and he wrote according to his own discretion, and perhaps expressed more than the Senate would have said. If a short text was given, this objection occurred; if the Senate amplified, then they dictated improperly to the PRESIDENT what he should write.

The example of the House of Representatives had been mentioned; he conceived it was no rule of proceeding for the Senate. The fact was, that the resolve carried in that House was upon a very slight view indeed of the papers communicated. Indeed, it would appear upon the face of it, that it was penned before the papers were read. This was, in his opinion, no example for imitation; the Senate ought to proceed with their usual deliberation.

It had been said that doubts had gone abroad, whether the Senate were friendly to France. Those doubts had been raised by writers among us, the same who also endeavor to convince the Americans that the friendship of France towards them was not cordial. This must appear unfounded from the proceeding now the object of debate, and the former suspicion must be removed by an insertion of the substance of the resolution now before the Senate on their journals.

Mr. TAZEWELL said a few words to show that there was no difference between the case he had already cited, the proceeding of the Senate, when they expressed their satisfaction at the manner in which the National Convention had honored the memory of BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, and the present case.

Mr. Ross differed. In the former instances, the PRESIDENT made the original communications to the Senate before he had answered them; now he has answered and only communicates an account of the transaction.

Mr. BURR was against striking out. The National Convention, he observed, might, when they received the answer to their first communication, have said, as is now said on the floor of the Senate, that the correspondence there ended, and that it was not necessary to make us a reply; but they acted differently, and he hoped the Senate would acknowledge the receipt of their pledge of friendship. Indeed he said, he could not see that any great harm would arise in the two branches of the Legislature interchanging even once a year a letter of friendship and good will with the Republic. It was objected that the present resolution was no answer to the letter. A few lines would make it so, and they might easily be added. The omission did not prove, as had been asserted by one member, that it was impossible to answer it. That it was not impossible was testified by the proceedings of the other branch. He did not intend to slight the dignity of the Senate, however, he said, by quoting the proceedings of the other House as a binding rule of proceeding for this; but their proceedings certainly proved the possibility of making an answer; and besides, there was full as much propriety in looking for precedents in their conduct, as in the proceedings of a British Parliament. Each, however, in their place might deserve weight, though not implicit reliance.

He advocated the rights of the Senate to answer for themselves, and the propriety of acknowledging the receipt of the Colors, which were not sent to the Executive exclusively.

He concluded by citing the Senate's own precedents in analogous cases, and he hoped that it would not be insisted that the practice of two or three successive years deserved to be laid to the charge of inadvertency.

After a few words more from Messrs. STRONG, BURR, READ, and BUTLER, the yeas and nays were called upon striking out, which were taken and stood--yeas 16, nays 8, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Bradford, Cabot, Ellsworth, Foster,
Gunn, Latimer, Livermore, Marshall, Paine, Read, Ross,
Rutherford, Strong, Trumbull, and Walton.

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

Whereupon it was

_Resolved_, unanimously, that the PRESIDENT be informed the Senate have received, with the purest pleasure, the evidences of the continued friendship of the French Republic, which accompanied his Message of the 4th inst.

That the Senate unite with him in all the feelings expressed to the Minister of France on the presentation of the Colors of his nation, and devoutly wish that this symbol of the triumphs and enfranchisement of that great people, given as a pledge of faithful friendship, and placed among the evidences and memorials of the freedom and independence of the United States, may contribute to cherish and perpetuate the sincere affection by which the two Republics are so happily united.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary lay this resolution before the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

MONDAY, May 9.

On motion, that a paper purporting to be the appointment of WILLIAM BLOUNT and WILLIAM COCKE, respectively, to seats in the Senate, should be read, it was agreed that the motion be postponed until to-morrow.

TUESDAY, May 10.

_New State of Tennessee._

The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the committee to whom was referred the Message of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, of the 8th of April last, respecting a new State south of the river Ohio; together with the motion for amendment, made on the 11th; and on the question to agree to the proposed amendment, it passed in the negative.

WEDNESDAY, May 23.

_The Proposed State of Tennessee._

The Senate resumed the consideration, in paragraphs, of the bill laying out into one State the territory ceded by the State of North Carolina to the United States, and providing for an enumeration of the inhabitants thereof.

A letter, signed William Blount and William Cocke, was read, stating that they have been duly and legally elected Senators to represent the State of Tennessee in the Senate.

On motion,

"That Mr. Blount and Mr. Cocke, who claim to be Senators of
the United States, be received as spectators, and that
chairs be provided for that purpose until the final
decision of the Senate shall be given on the bill proposing
to admit the South-western Territory into the Union:"

A motion was made to refer the consideration thereof to a committee; and it passed in the negative.

On motion to agree to the original motion, it passed in the affirmative--yeas 12, nays 11, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Bloodworth, Brown, Burr, Butler, Foster,
Henry, Langdon, Martin, Potts, Robinson, Tattnall, and
Tazewell.

NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Bradford, Gunn, Latimer, Livermore,
Marshall, Read, Ross, Rutherford, Strong, and Trumbull.

After debate, the further consideration of the bill last mentioned was postponed until to-morrow.

A letter from RUFUS KING was read, stating that he had accepted the appointment of Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of London, and resigning his seat in the Senate.

THURSDAY, May 26.

_New State of Tennessee._

The bill laying out into one State the territory ceded by the State of North Carolina to the United States, and providing for an enumeration of the inhabitants thereof, was read the third time.

On motion, that the bill be amended, so that the State be called and known by the name of Tennessee, it passed in the negative.

And, after agreeing to sundry amendments, on motion, that the following be an additional section to the bill:

"_And be it further enacted_, That if on the returns by the
Supervisor of the Revenue for the District of Tennessee, as
directed by this act, it shall appear to the PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES that the territory by this act laid out,
and formed into a State, doth contain sixty thousand free
inhabitants, that then it shall be lawful for the
President, by his Proclamation, to declare the same; and
that, in that event, and on their forming a constitution
consistent with the ordinance of Congress of the thirteenth
day of July, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven,
the said State, by the name and style of 'The State of
Tennessee,' shall be received and admitted into the Union
as a new and entire member of the United States of America.
And, until an enumeration shall be made, under the
authority of Congress, for the purpose of apportioning
Representatives, the said State of Tennessee shall be
entitled to choose one Representative:"

A motion was made to amend this motion, by striking out the following words:

"And on their forming a constitution consistent with the
ordinance of Congress of the thirteenth day of July, one
thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven:"

It passed in the negative--yeas 11, nays 12, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Bloodworth, Brown, Burr, Butler, Henry,
Langdon, Livermore, Martin, Robinson, Tattnall, and
Tazewell.

NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Bradford, Foster, Gunn, Latimer,
Marshall, Potts, Read, Ross, Rutherford, Strong, and
Trumbull.

And, on the question to agree to the motion without amendment, it passed in the negative--yeas 10, nays 12, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Burr, Foster, Gunn, Henry, Latimer,
Livermore, Martin, Potts, Tattnall, and Trumbull.

NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Bloodworth, Bradford, Brown,
Langdon, Marshall, Read, Robinson, Ross, Rutherford,
Strong, and Tazewell.

On the question, that the bill pass, it was determined in the affirmative--yeas 15, nays 8, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Bradford, Brown, Foster, Gunn,
Latimer, Martin, Potts, Read, Ross, Rutherford, Strong,
Tattnall, Tazewell, and Trumbull.

NAYS.--Messrs. Bloodworth, Burr, Butler, Henry, Langdon,
Livermore, Marshall, and Robinson.

So it was resolved, that this bill pass; that it be engrossed; and that the title thereof be "An act laying out into one State the territory ceded by the State of North Carolina to the United States, and providing for an enumeration of the inhabitants thereof."

TUESDAY, May 31.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the House have passed a bill, entitled "An act to alter the time of the next annual meeting of Congress;" in which they desire the concurrence of the Senate. They insist on their amendment, disagreed to by the Senate, to the bill, entitled "An act laying out into one State the territory ceded by the State of North Carolina to the United States, and providing for the enumeration of the inhabitants thereof;" ask a conference thereon, and have appointed managers at the same, on their part. They agree to all the amendments of the Senate to the bill, entitled, "An act regulating the grants of land appropriated for military services, and for the Society of United Brethren, for propagating the Gospel among the Heathen;" except to the last, to which they disagree.

_New State of Tennessee._

The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution of the House of Representatives, desiring a conference on the bill, entitled, "An act laying out into one State the territory ceded by the State of North Carolina to the United States, and providing for an enumeration of the inhabitants thereof."

On motion, to postpone the further consideration thereof until the next session of Congress, it passed in the negative--yeas 10, nays 13, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Bradford, Foster, Latimer, Potts,
Read, Ross, Rutherford, Strong, and Trumbull.

NAYS.--Messrs. Bloodworth, Brown, Burr, Butler, Gunn,
Henry, Langdon, Livermore, Marshall, Martin, Robinson,
Tattnall, and Tazewell.

_Resolved_, That the Senate agree to the proposed conference, and that Messrs. BURR and STRONG be managers at the same on their part.

Mr. BURR, from the joint committee of conference on the bill, entitled "An act laying out into one State the territory ceded by the State of North Carolina to the United States, and providing for an enumeration of the inhabitants thereof," reported, as the opinion of the majority of the joint committee, that the Senate recede from their disagreement to the amendment of the House of Representatives. Whereupon,

_Resolved_, That the Senate recede from their disagreement to the said amendment.

A motion was made by Mr. Burr, as follows:

"_Resolved_, That any enumeration of the inhabitants of any
district under the temporary Government of the United
States, for the purpose of furnishing evidence to Congress
that such district contains the number which may entitle it
to admission into the Union, shall have been taken and
made, under a law to be made by the Legislature of the said
district, of the free inhabitants only, and, in all other
respects, pursuant to the provisions contained in the act,
entitled "An act providing for the enumeration of the
inhabitants of the United States:""

Which motion was read and ordered to lie until to-morrow for consideration.

WEDNESDAY EVENING, 5 o'clock, June 1.

_New State of Tennessee._

On motion, by Mr. MARTIN, that it be

"_Resolved_, That the Honorable William Blount, and William
Cocke, Esquires, who have produced credentials of being
duly elected Senators for the State of Tennessee, be
admitted to take the oath necessary for their
qualification, and their seats accordingly;"

_Ordered_, That a paper, purporting to be the credentials of Mr. BLOUNT and Mr. COCKE, be read.

And, on the question to agree to the resolution, it passed in the negative--yeas 10, nays 11, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Bloodworth, Brown, Burr, Butler, Gunn,
Langdon, Martin, Robinson, Tattnall, and Tazewell.

NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Bradford, Foster, Latimer,
Livermore, Marshall, Potts, Read, Ross, Rutherford, and
Trumbull.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate, that the House, having finished the business before them, are about to adjourn to the first Monday in December next.

Mr. BUTLER, from the joint committee appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and notify him that, unless he had any further communications to make to them, they were ready to adjourn, reported, that the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES had no further communication to make, except the nomination of certain persons to execute the laws passed the present session.

After the consideration of the Executive business, the PRESIDENT adjourned the Senate to the first Monday in December next.

FOURTH CONGRESS.--FIRST SESSION.

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES

IN

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

MONDAY, December 7, 1795.

The following members appeared, and took their seats:

_From New Hampshire._--ABIEL FOSTER, NICHOLAS GILMAN, JOHN S. SHERBURNE, and JEREMIAH SMITH.

_From Massachusetts._--THEOPHILUS BRADBURY, HENRY DEARBORN, DWIGHT FOSTER, NATHANIEL FREEMAN, Jr., BENJAMIN GOODHUE, GEORGE LEONARD, SAMUEL LYMAN, WILLIAM LYMAN, JOHN READ, THEODORE SEDGWICK, GEORGE THATCHER, JOSEPH B. VARNUM, and PELEG WADSWORTH.

_From Rhode Island._--BENJAMIN BOURNE, and FRANCIS MALBONE.

_From Connecticut._--JOSHUA COIT, CHAUNCEY GOODRICH, ROGER GRISWOLD, ZEPHANIAH SWIFT, and URIAH TRACY.

_From Vermont._--ISRAEL SMITH.

_From New York._--THEODORUS BAILEY, WILLIAM COOPER, EZEKIEL GILBERT, HENRY GLENN, JONATHAN N. HAVENS, EDWARD LIVINGSTON, JOHN E. VAN ALLEN, PHILIP VAN CORTLANDT, and JOHN WILLIAMS.

_From New Jersey._--JONATHAN DAYTON, AARON KITCHELL, ISAAC SMITH, and MARK THOMPSON.

_From Pennsylvania._--DAVID BAIRD, ALBERT GALLATIN, DANIEL HEISTER, JOHN WILKES KITTERA, SAMUEL MACLAY, FREDERICK AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG, SAMUEL SITGREAVES, JOHN SWANWICK, and RICHARD THOMAS.

_From Delaware._--JOHN PATTEN.

_From Maryland._--GABRIEL CHRISTIE, GEORGE DENT, GABRIEL DUVALL, WILLIAM HINDMAN, and WILLIAM VANS MURRAY.

_From Virginia._--SAMUEL J. CABELL, JOHN CLOPTON, ISAAC COLES, WILLIAM B. GILES, GEORGE HANCOCK, CARTER B. HARRISON, JOHN HEATH, GEORGE JACKSON, JAMES MADISON, ANDREW MOORE, JOSIAH PARKER, ROBERT RUTHERFORD, and ABRAHAM VENABLE.

_From North Carolina._--THOMAS BLOUNT, NATHAN BRYAN, DEMPSEY BURGES, JESSE FRANKLIN, WILLIAM B. GROVE, JAMES HOLLAND, MATTHEW LOCKE, NATHANIEL MACON, and ABSALOM TATOM.

_From South Carolina._--SAMUEL EARLE, ROBERT GOODLOE HARPER, and WILLIAM SMITH.

_From Georgia._--ABRAHAM BALDWIN.

And a quorum, consisting of a majority of the whole number being present,

The House proceeded by ballot, to the choice of a SPEAKER; and, upon examining the ballots, a majority of the votes of the whole House was found in favor of JONATHAN DAYTON, one of the Representatives for the State of New Jersey. Whereupon,

The said JONATHAN DAYTON was conducted to the chair, from whence he made his acknowledgments to the House, as follows:

GENTLEMEN: It is with real diffidence that I undertake the
execution of the duties which you have done me the honor to
assign to me.

In discharging them to the best of my abilities, I
anticipate, on your part, a liberal and indulgent temper
towards those decisions which may be required from the
Chair, and flatter myself that I shall experience, upon all
occasions, your co-operation and support.

The House proceeded, in the same manner, to the appointment of a Clerk; and, upon examining the ballots, a majority of the votes of the whole House was found in favor of JOHN BECKLEY.

The oath to support the Constitution of the United States, as prescribed by the act, entitled "An act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths," was then administered by ISAAC SMITH, one of the Representatives from the State of New Jersey, to the SPEAKER, and then by Mr. SPEAKER to all the members present.

The same oath, together with the oath of office prescribed by the said recited act, were also administered by Mr. SPEAKER to the Clerk.

A message was received from the Senate, informing the House that a quorum of members of that body is assembled, and the VICE PRESIDENT being absent, they have proceeded to the choice of a PRESIDENT _pro tempore_, and that HENRY TAZEWELL has been duly elected.

_Ordered_, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform that body that a quorum of this House is assembled, and have elected JONATHAN DAYTON their SPEAKER; and that the Clerk of this House do go with the message.

Another message from the Senate was received, informing this House that they have appointed a committee on their part, to act jointly with such committee as may be appointed by this House, 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 he may think proper to make to them.

_Ordered_, That Mr. MADISON, Mr. SEDGWICK, and Mr. SITGREAVES, be appointed a committee on the part of this House, for the purpose expressed in the message of the Senate.

Petitions from sundry persons, praying to be appointed to the offices of Sergeant-at-Arms and Doorkeeper, were presented to the House and read: Whereupon,

The House proceeded, by ballot, to the choice of a Sergeant-at-Arms, Doorkeeper, and Assistant Doorkeeper; and, upon examining the ballots, a majority of the votes of the whole House was found in favor of JOSEPH WHEATON, as Sergeant-at-Arms, THOMAS CLAXTON, as Doorkeeper, and THOMAS DUNN, as Assistant Doorkeeper.

_Ordered_, That the said JOSEPH WHEATON, THOMAS CLAXTON, and THOMAS DUNN, do severally give their attendance accordingly.

Mr. MADISON, from the joint committee appointed 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 communication he may think proper to make to them, reported that the committee had, according to order, performed that service, and that the PRESIDENT signified to them that he would make a communication to both Houses of Congress to-morrow, at 12 o'clock, in the Representatives' Chamber.

TUESDAY, December 8.

Several other members, to wit: from Maryland, SAMUEL SMITH; from Virginia, RICHARD BRENT; and from Georgia, JOHN MILLEDGE, 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 Mr. SPEAKER, according to law.

_Ordered_, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform them that this House is now ready to attend them in receiving the communication from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, agreeably to his notification to both Houses yesterday; and that the Clerk of this House do go with the said message.

The Clerk accordingly went with the said message; and, being returned,

The Senate attended and took seats in the House; when, both Houses being assembled, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES came into the Representatives' Chamber, and delivered his Speech to the two Houses. [For a copy of this Speech, see the Proceedings of the Senate.]

The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES then withdrew, and the two Houses separated.

_Ordered_, That the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to both Houses be committed to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.

WEDNESDAY, December 9.

JAMES HILLHOUSE, from Connecticut, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat.

_Address to the President._

The House, according to the order of the day, resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to both Houses of Congress, Mr. MUHLENBERG in the chair; when, the Speech being read,

Mr. VANS MURRAY moved the following resolution:

"_Resolved_, That it is the opinion of the 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:"

Mr. SEDGWICK seconded the motion.

Mr. PARKER offered an amendment, which was seconded by Mr. MACON.

The substance of this amendment was, to strike out all that part of the resolution which goes before the word _assurances_; in place of which, Mr. PARKER proposed to appoint a committee, who should personally wait on the PRESIDENT, and assure him of the attention of the House, &c., and concluding as above. Mr. P. had the highest respect for the PRESIDENT, but he had always disapproved of this practice of making out Addresses in answer to these Speeches, and of the House leaving their business to go in a body to present them. Last session, the framing of this Address had cost very long debates, and produced very great irritation. Some of the most disagreeable things that happened during the session occurred in these debates. He wished unanimity and the despatch of business, and so, could not consent that any Address should be drawn up, as he preferred ending the affair at once by sending a committee with a verbal answer.

Mr. MURRAY replied, that the practice of drawing up such an Address was coeval with the constitution. It was consistent with good sense; and he did not see that any argument had been employed by the gentleman who spoke last against it. It was true that the House might send a verbal answer, and it was likewise true that the PRESIDENT might have sent them his Speech by his Secretary, without coming near them at all. He had come to Congress, and Mr. M. could perceive no impropriety in Congress returning the compliment by waiting on him.

The committee divided on the amendment proposed by Mr. PARKER. Eighteen members rose in support of it: so it was lost. The committee then agreed to the resolution as offered by Mr. MURRAY. They rose, and the Chairman reported progress. The resolution was agreed to by the House. The next question was, of how many members the select committee should consist that were to be employed in framing a draft of the Address. The different numbers of five and three were proposed. A division took place on the former motion, when only thirty-one gentlemen rose in its favor. The motion for a committee of three members to report an Address was of course carried. Mr. MADISON, Mr. SEDGWICK, and Mr. SITGREAVES, were appointed.[61]

It was then moved that two Chaplains should be named, as usual; which was agreed to.

THURSDAY, December 10.

FRANCIS PRESTON, from Virginia, appeared, was qualified, and took his seat.

FRIDAY, December 11.

Several other members, to wit: from Vermont, DANIEL BUCK; from New Jersey, THOMAS HENDERSON; from Pennsylvania, WILLIAM FINDLAY; and from Virginia, JOHN NICHOLAS, appeared, produced their credentials, were qualified, and took their seats.

MONDAY, December 14.

Two other members, to wit: from Pennsylvania, THOMAS HARTLEY, and from Virginia, ANTHONY NEW, appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats.

_Address to the President._

Mr. MADISON, from the select committee appointed to draft an Address in answer to the Speech of the PRESIDENT, made a report, which was read by the Clerk.

Mr. GILES moved that the usual number of copies of the Address should be printed for the use of the members.

TUESDAY, December 15.

_Address to the President._

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. MUHLENBERG in the chair, on the draft of an answer to the PRESIDENT's Speech. The following sentence being under consideration:

"Contemplating that probably unequalled spectacle of
national happiness, which our country exhibits, to the
interesting summary which you, sir, have been pleased to
make, in justice to our own feelings, permit us to add the
benefits which are derived from your presiding in our
councils, resulting as well from the undiminished
confidence of your fellow-citizens, as from your zealous
and successful labors in their service."

Mr. PARKER moved to strike out the words "probably unequalled," and from the word "councils," to the end. He owned that the United States owe much to the PRESIDENT for his services on most occasions; but he had sometimes erred as other men. He could not for his own part subscribe to the expressions contained in the words which he had moved to strike out; his confidence in the PRESIDENT was diminished in consequence of a late transaction.

Mr. SHERBURNE called for a division of the question; that a question should first be put upon the words "probably unequalled," and afterwards upon striking out the latter part of the clause.

The question was accordingly put upon the words "probably unequalled," and they were struck out, 43 to 39.

Mr. MURRAY rose to make a few observations on the motion for striking out from the word "councils." As a Representative from Maryland, he said, he could not on this occasion be contented to give a silent vote. The Legislature of that State had not long since declared, that their confidence in the PRESIDENT remains undiminished; and though his single sentiment might be deemed unimportant when viewed in connection with the unanimous vote of his State, yet he was free to declare, that his confidence in the Chief Magistrate had experienced no diminution. The Legislature of Maryland, he observed, had foreseen that attempts would be made, and saw that unjustifiable attempts were actually making to diminish the confidence of the people in the PRESIDENT; they therefore resolved to give the sanction of their unanimous vote to his character, declaring that the PRESIDENT retained their confidence, and that he had merited it. Though not bound by the opinion of the Legislature of that State, he conceived it his duty not to give a silent vote on the present occasion.

Mr. GILES had hoped that nothing would have been brought before the House calculated to disturb the harmony that ought to subsist, by involving the discussion of delicate points. He had as much zeal as any man for the preservation of the PRESIDENT's fame and reputation; but he could not go the length of the expressions in the clause objected to. He could not agree to it in its present shape, because the assertion in it does not correspond with the fact. After this remark, there could not, he conceived, be any inconsistency in voting against the word and still feeling a regard for the PRESIDENT. He hoped his fame and reputation might never receive a stain, but pass unimpaired to posterity. He should vote for striking out.

Mr. FREEMAN wished the motion might be so modified as to involve the striking out of the word "undiminished" only. Though he for himself, he observed, might say that his confidence in the PRESIDENT was undiminished, he could not utter the same sentiment in behalf of the people at large. In his opinion the confidence of a part (a very small one perhaps) of the people was diminished; though that of a majority might be unshaken.

Mr. HARPER said he had no difficulty in declaring, that his own confidence in the PRESIDENT was undiminished, but he could not go so far as to pledge himself that that of all the people was so. He never, he said, had been in the habit of worshiping the PRESIDENT. He considered him as a man, not infallible, but as a wise, honest, and faithful public servant, and he was prepared in all places and situations to declare this opinion; but he was not ready to pronounce concerning the opinion of the people of the United States. Some time hence they may become unanimous in their confidence; but he could not say that it was not diminished. He was ready to declare for himself but not for others. If called upon to declare whether a majority, whether four-fifths of the people retained their confidence in the PRESIDENT, he could declare it as his opinion in the affirmative; but the clause as it stands includes the whole, and he declared as it stood could not command his vote. He concluded by expressing his intention, when it would be in order, to introduce a modification of the clause, so as to express the undiminished confidence of the House in the PRESIDENT.

Mr. PARKER, in coincidence with the wish of Mr. FREEMAN, agreed to confine his motion to striking out the word "undiminished."

Mr. SEDGWICK doubted whether, after a division of the question, and a question being taken on the first part, a modification of the second part would be in order.

The Chairman declared it in order.

Mr. SEDGWICK viewed the present motion as even more objectionable than the first; it went directly to a denial of undiminished confidence for the PRESIDENT on the part of the House and the public. There was a time, he said, when no man could have supposed that the period would have arrived, that in the popular branch of the GOVERNMENT, the confidence of the people and their Representatives in that man could have been questioned.

Having been on the committee that framed the answer, and maturely considered the subject in every part, he would mention some of the observations that occurred to his mind particularly in favor of the part now objected to. Lest in the course of them his sensibility on this subject should betray him into some warmth of expression, he begged leave to premise that he wished to wound the feelings of no man.

It was proper, he said, to inquire into facts on which the expression now objected to was grounded. Is the confidence of the people in the services, and patriotism, and wisdom of the Chief Magistrate diminished? His experience led him to say no; then, in the existing circumstances, is it not right for the Representatives to make the declaration to their constituents and the world? To suppose the people, who, at the present moment, enjoyed so many blessings under the PRESIDENT's administration, could feel their confidence in him impaired, would suppose a baseness of disposition unworthy of them and of the services he has rendered. Who could review the glorious conduct of our Chief during the conflict of the Revolution, his unwearied labors for the public good, his bravery, moderation, and humanity; who could observe him in his happy retirement, covered with glory, and accompanied by the blessings of his country; then forsaking his retirement, putting at hazard the mighty mass of his reputation, and be insensible of his services? Who could review the critical situation in which he preserved our peace and prosperity during a glorious administration of six years; who could review these things and not have his heart filled with gratitude and esteem? He expressed his belief, that, a late measure of the Executive was less the object of the dislike of some, than affording the opportunity for the vent of passions and feelings deep-rooted before.

As to the sense of the people of the PRESIDENT, he believed it unaltered, as to his immediate constituents, he was sure it was; and if so, it was the duty of the House to make the declaration to the world--a duty the House owed to themselves and their constituents, and the more binding from the nature of the Government the people had chosen.

Though the PRESIDENT had twice been called to the PRESIDENCY by the unanimous and unsolicited voice of his fellow-citizens; though in obedience to that voice he had made a sacrifice no other man would have made; though the only reward he has received for his services has been the approbation of his country, yet, nevertheless, licentious presses had lately teemed with infamous and scandalous abuse of him. Is this, he asked, consonant to the feelings of the House, and shall they not attempt to counteract its effects in the only constitutional manner? Shall they not declare their own and their constituents' confidence undiminished in that officer of the Government?